“Each of those counsel has authorized me to inform the Court, through this letter, that their respective client or clients do not reside or work in Virginia and never used the account while physically present in Virginia.”
It appears the information was gathered via communication with the parties in question. That raises the likelihood that evidence was provided to Twitter's council to satisfy them that the statement they were making was true to the limit of the evidence available when combined with IP-based geolocation of tweets.
Re: Even if "your" original, according to Techdirt IT'S NOT YOUR
Questions on if the illustration is property do not impact questions of who owns the copyright in an image. The EFF notes that it exercises a light touch with its government granted rights, and as such is widely allowed to make use of the image the EFF has rights to, but for that party to claim ownership of the rights to the image would be false.
If you take the language of your linked article and untangle the existing conflation of the image and the government granted rights to the image that your linked article clearly notes is a problem with our current discussion, nothing the EFF says here conflicts with the TechDirt article.
Stone, The comment you replied to said that exact thing:
Some take the fact that hate speech can be used as evidence of motive in a hate crime and misremember it as the hate speech in-and-of itself being illegal.
Wouldn't help you here. This is looking for the info on people who downloaded the app from Google Play or the App Store. That transaction record exists regardless of account creation.
Re: Re: Performing as intended, at least for the NFL
Better cell reception and bandwidth are largely factors of the volume of service the antennas serving the stadium can handle. Fantasy football scores don't need that much bandwidth. More 4G service could easily handle issues with bandwidth. 5G service doesn't really address reception (as noted above, coverage for 5G is poor overall) and the solution to reception (more 5g nodes) also could be used by 4G to handle bandwidth concerns for a smaller footprint. The point of the buildout is to be ahead of the curve, assuming 5G will be the standard everyone expects in 2021, but it doesn't seem like a good fit for this use case.
Its the appropriate term. Edge providers, in the lingo of players contributing to the internet, are those providing content or services. They are at the endpoints of the network, or the 'edges'.
This is in contrast to an access provider (or last-mile provider or service provider, aka an ISP), or a backbone provider.
Id contest the description 'King of the Hill". KOTH involves a 'Hill', a defined location less than the total volume of the field of play that must be defended. Killing is only a means to the end of keeping other people off the hill. Fortnight is in the battle royale genre, which is a sole survivor genre. Defeating your enemies is more important than maintaining sole control of a specific location. Its no more king of the hill then hunger games.
The phrase "Deport Them All" has some unfortunate connotations, which pair nicely with the why you phrased that question.
For all your focus on 'Illegal Immigration', you chose deport them all, rather than say deport those violating the law. In the current policial climate, refugees are repeatedly described as illegally crossing the border, and skipping the line, in contrast to the reality that the asylum process of crossing the border and requesting asylum is indeed legal. The president has also suggested deporting people without due process, Despite that even with existing due process we still deport US citizens, let alone legal residents with surprising frequency. And yet, the need to mass deport Canadians, who are reportedly currently the worst as far as illegal immigration goes, is not generally discussed, nor is a wall on the northern border.
This leads such a phrase as "by the way, you should deport them all" to take on the connotations of racism that seem to be threaded throughout the hard-line immigration stance. Because as much as the statement could be innocuous, many people who employ such a term refer almost exclusively to immigrants of latin decent.
You might try to claim that "them" is all illegal immigrants, but that is because you are Schrodinger's douchebag dogwhistling your Nazi allies. You have chosen an ambiguous term that the reader will, by human nature, apply the current political climate to, so you can than act all high and mighty when we call out the way such a statement would be clearly seen when reflecting on the phrase.
Muting solves all the issues of harassment you highlight as a reason to ban an individual.
The only issue I see is the potential for someone restrained by a geniune restraining order being able to stalk an individual, but that in and of itself does not violate the restraining order. Issues of cyber contact not resolved by the restraining order are handled by application of the mute button, and violations of the restraining order are handled by the police.
Restriction of 1st amendment rights by the government requires due process, restriction of speech by private platforms or individuals does not require due process.
Application of the mute feature as you admit is just as functional as the block function to hide crude and harassing individuals. But from the perspective of those muted, there is a very different result between mute and block, and the court has ruled that for a public official using twitter as an official communications channel, Mute is the correct choice, not block. Nothing you have said here serves to address those rulings. Your own words prove the futility of those words.
I don't expect a ban to come from any one incident or a ban-able offence to be reported by only one individual. So long as the report of AOC had no special weight, the court could apply a principle I call the no-single-event principle - it isn't that the government reported the action, but the multitude of actions and the multitude of reports, so the action can't be said to be the action of the government, but a response by twitter to public reports which may contain reports made by an individual who is a government official.
Actually, The first step is state supreme court. Then, if the state rules against her or refuses to take up the appeal, because the claims implicate her federally granted rights, she could file an appeal to the federal district court, before the SCOTUS get involved.
If this wasn't an appeal based on federally granted rights, the federal district courts couldn't come into play, but they can enforce federally granted rights onto the states.
Re: Re: After this is overturned, does she get to sue the state?
A) That there is a statute of limitations that is running out is not in evidence. Those convicted as a result of malfeasance often have been able to get settlements if not verdicts in their favor when that malfeasance is laid bare even decades later. And 42 USC §1983 (where civil right violations come into play) has no statute of limitations.
B) The real issue is that most of the people involved are likely to be held not personally liable - various forms of immunity protect prosecutors and judges from lawsuits related to their jobs, often an absolute immunity. The jurisdiction - the city or county or state - might be held liable. But given it was law, the government could also potentially skate.
A civil rights lawsuit would not hinge on a statute of limitations. It could however die due to a perceived reasonableness to apply the law. Most likely though? Undisclosed settlement.
The right to privacy has been noted several times by the courts as integral to the exercise of freedom of speech. Curtailing the right to privacy is regularly cited as a means of curtailing freedom of speech. The rights implicate each other. My assertion was that the citation of the 1st amendment was in fact a shorthand to these rulings, that the government's effort to claim a need to protect privacy in a complaint was in fact an effort to cultivate robust free speech activity. I agree the argument is bullshit, but it is not the blatant one suggested.
I would somewhat disagree. Redacting the public display of communication details of individuals complaining to the government could certainly improve the willingness of people to make complaints, much as we support anonymous speech complaining against the government. Otherwise that information, necessary to make a complaint, could be used by bad faith actors as part of a doxxing campiagn.
However, such redactions shouldn't prevent the release of documents otherwise valuable to the public.
The number, 5,000 voters, is the number of same day voter registrations filed. That much is well documented. However, no evidence has been submitted to prove that all of these registrations were Clinton voters. Given that NC considers out of state College students eligible for voting, thousands of 18 year-olds could have easily moved to NC 2 months earlier and not registered to vote because they did not get a NC ID. Since lots of the "evidence" relates to these people not having NC DL/ID, a lot of the evidence that does exist doesn't actually prove voter fraud, but rather that the republican-instituted voter registration policies are operating as intended.
Despite repeated calls and promises of an investigation, there has been no evidence presented that any significant amount of these registrations were fake. No evidence was found or presented of bussing or other widespread voter fraud.
The intended use case does not appear to be with emergency services, but to share a location between friends, acquaintances, or even relative strangers (meet up groups) in a simple format where straight GPS coordinates might be intimidating to the general public. Emergency services only is coming up because recent acts have related it to government approval of the proprietary algorithm over open source options, entrenching a proprietary player.
As for texting, Precision GPS is easy to transpose and throw off your location, as you need 4-5 decimal places to give a good positioning for others. E Mail might work, assuming a person is both willing to understand how to do that and not panicking. W3W and similar systems are easier for large portions of the population to handle, and really they should be able to get the gps data from the phone, as noted by others.
On the post: Twitter Stands Up For Devin Nunes' Parody Accounts: Won't Reveal Who's Behind Them
Re: Re: Now what?
It appears the information was gathered via communication with the parties in question. That raises the likelihood that evidence was provided to Twitter's council to satisfy them that the statement they were making was true to the limit of the evidence available when combined with IP-based geolocation of tweets.
On the post: Encryption Working Group Releases Paper To 'Move The Conversation Forward'
Re:
I agree. What should we do to bump https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/09/10/moving-encryption-policy-conversation-forward-pub-79573 up in the Google search rankings?
On the post: That Time EFF Got A Copyright Takedown Demand Of Its Own Artwork
Re: Re: Even if "your" original, according to Techdirt IT'S NOT
Dammit. "...and as such the other party in this dispute is widely allowed..." was the intended statement.
On the post: That Time EFF Got A Copyright Takedown Demand Of Its Own Artwork
Re: Even if "your" original, according to Techdirt IT'S NOT YOUR
Questions on if the illustration is property do not impact questions of who owns the copyright in an image. The EFF notes that it exercises a light touch with its government granted rights, and as such is widely allowed to make use of the image the EFF has rights to, but for that party to claim ownership of the rights to the image would be false.
If you take the language of your linked article and untangle the existing conflation of the image and the government granted rights to the image that your linked article clearly notes is a problem with our current discussion, nothing the EFF says here conflicts with the TechDirt article.
On the post: Student Sues College After Being Told Not To Exercise His First Amendment Rights Without The School's Permission
Re:
Stone, The comment you replied to said that exact thing:
On the post: DOJ Wants Apple, Google To Hand Over Names And Phone Numbers Of 10,000 App Users
Re:
Wouldn't help you here. This is looking for the info on people who downloaded the app from Google Play or the App Store. That transaction record exists regardless of account creation.
On the post: Verizon Can't Stop Over-hyping 5G; This Time In NFL Stadiums
Re: Re: Performing as intended, at least for the NFL
Better cell reception and bandwidth are largely factors of the volume of service the antennas serving the stadium can handle. Fantasy football scores don't need that much bandwidth. More 4G service could easily handle issues with bandwidth. 5G service doesn't really address reception (as noted above, coverage for 5G is poor overall) and the solution to reception (more 5g nodes) also could be used by 4G to handle bandwidth concerns for a smaller footprint. The point of the buildout is to be ahead of the curve, assuming 5G will be the standard everyone expects in 2021, but it doesn't seem like a good fit for this use case.
On the post: Much Of The Assault On 'Big Tech' Is Being Driven By 'Big Telecom'
Re: Terminology and POV
Its the appropriate term. Edge providers, in the lingo of players contributing to the internet, are those providing content or services. They are at the endpoints of the network, or the 'edges'.
This is in contrast to an access provider (or last-mile provider or service provider, aka an ISP), or a backbone provider.
On the post: Epic Accuses Cheating Minor Of Continuing To Promote Cheat Software Even After Lawsuit
Re: Re:
Id contest the description 'King of the Hill". KOTH involves a 'Hill', a defined location less than the total volume of the field of play that must be defended. Killing is only a means to the end of keeping other people off the hill. Fortnight is in the battle royale genre, which is a sole survivor genre. Defeating your enemies is more important than maintaining sole control of a specific location. Its no more king of the hill then hunger games.
On the post: Three Years Later And The Copyright Office Still Can't Build A Functioning Website For DMCA Agents, But Demands Everyone Re-Register
Re: Re: Re: The copyright office owes you $0.50
Those charging fees without congressional approval
On the post: Pro Tip: Don't Send A Completely Bogus Defamation Threat To A Website That Employs A Former ACLU Badass
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The phrase "Deport Them All" has some unfortunate connotations, which pair nicely with the why you phrased that question.
For all your focus on 'Illegal Immigration', you chose deport them all, rather than say deport those violating the law. In the current policial climate, refugees are repeatedly described as illegally crossing the border, and skipping the line, in contrast to the reality that the asylum process of crossing the border and requesting asylum is indeed legal. The president has also suggested deporting people without due process, Despite that even with existing due process we still deport US citizens, let alone legal residents with surprising frequency. And yet, the need to mass deport Canadians, who are reportedly currently the worst as far as illegal immigration goes, is not generally discussed, nor is a wall on the northern border.
This leads such a phrase as "by the way, you should deport them all" to take on the connotations of racism that seem to be threaded throughout the hard-line immigration stance. Because as much as the statement could be innocuous, many people who employ such a term refer almost exclusively to immigrants of latin decent.
You might try to claim that "them" is all illegal immigrants, but that is because you are Schrodinger's douchebag dogwhistling your Nazi allies. You have chosen an ambiguous term that the reader will, by human nature, apply the current political climate to, so you can than act all high and mighty when we call out the way such a statement would be clearly seen when reflecting on the phrase.
On the post: Knight Institute Warns Rep. Ocasio-Cortez That She, Like Trump, Can't Block People On Twitter
Re:
Muting solves all the issues of harassment you highlight as a reason to ban an individual.
The only issue I see is the potential for someone restrained by a geniune restraining order being able to stalk an individual, but that in and of itself does not violate the restraining order. Issues of cyber contact not resolved by the restraining order are handled by application of the mute button, and violations of the restraining order are handled by the police.
Restriction of 1st amendment rights by the government requires due process, restriction of speech by private platforms or individuals does not require due process.
Application of the mute feature as you admit is just as functional as the block function to hide crude and harassing individuals. But from the perspective of those muted, there is a very different result between mute and block, and the court has ruled that for a public official using twitter as an official communications channel, Mute is the correct choice, not block. Nothing you have said here serves to address those rulings. Your own words prove the futility of those words.
On the post: Bedbug Privilege: Bret Stephens Uses His NY Times Column To Suggest Jokingly Comparing Him To A Bedbug Is Prelude To Ethnic Genocide
Re: Internet law bingo
Quick, someone photoshop his head on a mating bedbug so we get rule 34.
On the post: Knight Institute Warns Rep. Ocasio-Cortez That She, Like Trump, Can't Block People On Twitter
Re:
I don't expect a ban to come from any one incident or a ban-able offence to be reported by only one individual. So long as the report of AOC had no special weight, the court could apply a principle I call the no-single-event principle - it isn't that the government reported the action, but the multitude of actions and the multitude of reports, so the action can't be said to be the action of the government, but a response by twitter to public reports which may contain reports made by an individual who is a government official.
On the post: Indiana Appeals Court Decides Badmouthing A Cop On Facebook Is A Crime
Re: May Be the End of the Line
Actually, The first step is state supreme court. Then, if the state rules against her or refuses to take up the appeal, because the claims implicate her federally granted rights, she could file an appeal to the federal district court, before the SCOTUS get involved.
If this wasn't an appeal based on federally granted rights, the federal district courts couldn't come into play, but they can enforce federally granted rights onto the states.
On the post: Indiana Appeals Court Decides Badmouthing A Cop On Facebook Is A Crime
Re: Re: After this is overturned, does she get to sue the state?
A) That there is a statute of limitations that is running out is not in evidence. Those convicted as a result of malfeasance often have been able to get settlements if not verdicts in their favor when that malfeasance is laid bare even decades later. And 42 USC §1983 (where civil right violations come into play) has no statute of limitations.
B) The real issue is that most of the people involved are likely to be held not personally liable - various forms of immunity protect prosecutors and judges from lawsuits related to their jobs, often an absolute immunity. The jurisdiction - the city or county or state - might be held liable. But given it was law, the government could also potentially skate.
A civil rights lawsuit would not hinge on a statute of limitations. It could however die due to a perceived reasonableness to apply the law. Most likely though? Undisclosed settlement.
On the post: Missouri Attorney General Claims The First Amendment Allows Him To Withhold Public Records
Re: Re:
The right to privacy has been noted several times by the courts as integral to the exercise of freedom of speech. Curtailing the right to privacy is regularly cited as a means of curtailing freedom of speech. The rights implicate each other. My assertion was that the citation of the 1st amendment was in fact a shorthand to these rulings, that the government's effort to claim a need to protect privacy in a complaint was in fact an effort to cultivate robust free speech activity. I agree the argument is bullshit, but it is not the blatant one suggested.
On the post: Missouri Attorney General Claims The First Amendment Allows Him To Withhold Public Records
I would somewhat disagree. Redacting the public display of communication details of individuals complaining to the government could certainly improve the willingness of people to make complaints, much as we support anonymous speech complaining against the government. Otherwise that information, necessary to make a complaint, could be used by bad faith actors as part of a doxxing campiagn.
However, such redactions shouldn't prevent the release of documents otherwise valuable to the public.
On the post: Federal Elections Committee Chair Is Sick Of Donald Trump's Bullshit: Put Up Or Shut Up About Voter Fraud
Re:
The number, 5,000 voters, is the number of same day voter registrations filed. That much is well documented. However, no evidence has been submitted to prove that all of these registrations were Clinton voters. Given that NC considers out of state College students eligible for voting, thousands of 18 year-olds could have easily moved to NC 2 months earlier and not registered to vote because they did not get a NC ID. Since lots of the "evidence" relates to these people not having NC DL/ID, a lot of the evidence that does exist doesn't actually prove voter fraud, but rather that the republican-instituted voter registration policies are operating as intended.
Despite repeated calls and promises of an investigation, there has been no evidence presented that any significant amount of these registrations were fake. No evidence was found or presented of bussing or other widespread voter fraud.
On the post: What3words Is A Clever Way Of Communicating Position Very Simply, But Do We Really Want To Create A Monopoly For Location Look-ups?
Re:
The intended use case does not appear to be with emergency services, but to share a location between friends, acquaintances, or even relative strangers (meet up groups) in a simple format where straight GPS coordinates might be intimidating to the general public. Emergency services only is coming up because recent acts have related it to government approval of the proprietary algorithm over open source options, entrenching a proprietary player.
As for texting, Precision GPS is easy to transpose and throw off your location, as you need 4-5 decimal places to give a good positioning for others. E Mail might work, assuming a person is both willing to understand how to do that and not panicking. W3W and similar systems are easier for large portions of the population to handle, and really they should be able to get the gps data from the phone, as noted by others.
Next >>