The First Amendment restricts what the government can do. Private entities (people like us) and companies (like FB) can do whatever they want provided their behavior is lawful. They can discriminate, but not against a protected class. They can build new offices however they like, but only to local codes and the ADA, etc.
Just as we support Microsoft's battle to tell the US DoJ that documents stored in Ireland are not subject to US laws, it behooves us to note that FB's actions in other countries are subject to the laws of THOSE countries, not those we're used to in the US (and again, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment).
When FB censors things in China, we don't seem to call the Chinese government criminals. They killed more of their own people in Tianenman Square than all the Gaza and West Bank deaths ever. When Iran shut down various apps so there's *no* communication we don't call them criminals yet they imprison more of their own people than Israel has imprisoned *convicted* mass-murderers.
Even our friends the Saudis, treating women like dirt and imprisoning their own royal kin until ransoms of 33% of one's net worth are given to the royal coffers... and nobody says anything.
So I guess if you want to hate on the Israeli government, and FB is following the law of the land where they are operating, this is as good a forum to do it in as any. If you want to get away from Yet Another judge-from-afar discussion and focus on the topic -- it is whether FB should follow local laws, and if not, what should they do?
This article says: "...said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests".
The original article cited says: "... said that Israel submitted 158 requests..."
It's ok to replace "Israel" with its seat of government (Jerusalem) much as we would Ankara for Turkey, Washington for the US, etc., but Tel Aviv is not Israel's capital.
Congress has more openly than ever before admitted they do things so their backers will give them cash.
To call this merely political grandstanding ignores the fact that someone is paying for this legislation.
Gutting Section 230 protections benefits two parties: 1. The MPAA and those who would silence the "pirates". 2. South Carolina dentists with a one-star review, their lawyers, and thin-skinned politicians everywhere.
The former have the motive, means, and opportunity.
The thing you know... and the thing on which you opine...
...should be similar.
Scott Greenfield rails against "law prawfs" who offer legal advice but haven't a clue how the real world works.
Techdirt rails against LEOs chattering about "golden back door key cuffs magic" but really don't have a clue how encryption works.
This article is in the same boat suggesting ICOs, something financial advisers from Jordan Belfort ("Wolf of Wall Street") to Prince Alwaleed telling people to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ICOs and that they're going to be the next Enron. Posters above me have already excoriated you for missing the entire point that buying IC is not "investing" and it's not "payment" and it's only a "gamble" with little upside and lots of downside.
We don't want to create a system where we pay real life coders, developers, bug-hunters, or experts based on a gamble in which they don't have any control of the dice, the roll, the size of the bet, or the payoff odds.
Sorry, Glyn, you're usually on-point, but this one missed the point by somewhere just north of 179.9°.
Shiva clearly believes that he invented email, that there's a conspiracy to deny him that, and that it's racially motivated. Delusional people don't give up easily so it's not surprising he filed an appeal. It costs him a small portion of what he extorted from Gawker.
Part of his delusional maniacal desire that the world recognize his genius for inventing EMAIL is because he is an ugly little boy born in a society that values caste, and he was of the lowest. His efforts since that, his lying under the guise of self-promotion (but is it lying if you believe it?) and his unwillingness to accept anything but his own made-up story... those are the signs of a sick mind.
I hope this ugly little boy gets the help he needs before all these losses in the courts make him realize just how little he has contributed, and how worthless he is, and what a fool he makes of himself, the Indian people, and the know-nothings (of tech) who support him.
I knew you'd bring up child porn. Not to split hairs, the data on the storage facility are not unlawful. There are no statutes which address responsibilities of inanimate objects.
Being in possession of the data or transferring that data within countries that outlaw those _actions_ of _people_ is unlawful _behavior_ on the part of the _people_. The data are innocent.
I like how you say "...let's turn the US House..." as if WE, The People, can do anything.
The House and the Senate have made sure to consolidate power over these last 230 years so that WE can't change any of THEIR systems; WE can't call a Constitutional Convention.
WE should be Content. WE should be Compliant. WE should give them more of our money.
"And, frankly, it's kind of difficult to justify why we still have an electoral college when it's quite clear that it serves no really useful function."
When the framers of this country considered representation they wanted to respect the rights of all people. However, many of the tiny eastern states (e.g. Delaware, Rhode Island) would have a lot less say in federal matters than larger territories cum states such as California, Deseret, etc.
The "Great Compromise" called for creating two houses of Congress. One would have equal representation based on the population of the states -- that is the House of Representatives, although it guarantees a two-representative minimum. The other house would have an equal number of representatives from every states -- that is the Senate.
The Great Compromise called that states' votes for the President would be a sum of the fixed reps (2 senators) and the variable reps (2+ representatives). That is the basis for the vote distribution.
When one says it's difficult to justify the [continued] existence of the electoral college one should reflect on how it's designed to balance the large-population states' rights with the small-population states' rights. It is NOT designed to balance the rights of individual voters! That was NOT its goal and it certainly does NOT do that and will NEVER do that.
So jumping from an understanding of why we have it, an informed voter may say "Well one man one vote, so get rid of the electoral college." The same voter may then consider that if we truly had one man one vote then STATES no longer have power over the election. (This also obviates the "winner take all" problem). It would mean lots of changes, some good, and some not so good:
o Candidates would rarely stump in rural areas o In areas of predominantly red or blue states, the disenfranchised people would finally get to vote
As a fan of true democracy -- which this country doesn't do -- I would love to see the removal of the electoral college and replacement with verified secure accountable transparent voting by the population of citizens for the office of President of the United States.
For the reasons cited above I don't expect the States of the Union and the politicians running them to support removal of their power anytime ever.
Ehud Gavron US Citizen and a blue guy in a red state
"...this doesn't mean that all illegal content must remain online..."
Did someone replace the regular TechDirt editors with someone from the RIAA?
There's no such thing as illegal (or unlawful) content. Content does not violate a civil or criminal statute. Only people can do that and incur civil or criminal penalties.
Please do all your readers a favor and never ever say "illegal content" again as if it's a thing.
Real hackers don't route their traffic through "20 IP addresses" or even 200 or even 2000. They use an anonymizing system such as TOR.
A hacker as "shortsighted" so as to use a pool of 200 addresses from which to launch attacks would be laughed out of any room at DEFCON. How even worse that our vaunted intelligence services are stupider than that.
There's some comparison in the article (twice) to Russian Hackers obfuscating their IP addresses. The point is missed that Russian hackers DID obfuscate their IP addresses. The US IC people were stupid. Or incompetent.
It's sad to see someone whose spent 12 years in basic academia, 4 years in college, 4 years L1-L4, got his JD, got admitted by the bar, studied up on law in many jurisdictions...
On the post: Facebook Allowing Israeli Security Forces To Shape The News Palestineans See
The First Amendment, US law, and FB
Just as we support Microsoft's battle to tell the US DoJ that documents stored in Ireland are not subject to US laws, it behooves us to note that FB's actions in other countries are subject to the laws of THOSE countries, not those we're used to in the US (and again, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment).
When FB censors things in China, we don't seem to call the Chinese government criminals. They killed more of their own people in Tianenman Square than all the Gaza and West Bank deaths ever. When Iran shut down various apps so there's *no* communication we don't call them criminals yet they imprison more of their own people than Israel has imprisoned *convicted* mass-murderers.
Even our friends the Saudis, treating women like dirt and imprisoning their own royal kin until ransoms of 33% of one's net worth are given to the royal coffers... and nobody says anything.
So I guess if you want to hate on the Israeli government, and FB is following the law of the land where they are operating, this is as good a forum to do it in as any. If you want to get away from Yet Another judge-from-afar discussion and focus on the topic -- it is whether FB should follow local laws, and if not, what should they do?
E
On the post: Facebook Allowing Israeli Security Forces To Shape The News Palestineans See
Minor correction...
The original article cited says: "... said that Israel submitted 158 requests..."
It's ok to replace "Israel" with its seat of government (Jerusalem) much as we would Ankara for Turkey, Washington for the US, etc., but Tel Aviv is not Israel's capital.
E
On the post: Congressional Discussion On Section 702 Renewal Postponed Until 2018
typo
On the post: Congress Fixes More Problems With FOSTA Bill... But It Still Needs Work
Re:
Roy Moore's grooming chambers.
E
On the post: Congress Fixes More Problems With FOSTA Bill... But It Still Needs Work
Follow the money
To call this merely political grandstanding ignores the fact that someone is paying for this legislation.
Gutting Section 230 protections benefits two parties:
1. The MPAA and those who would silence the "pirates".
2. South Carolina dentists with a one-star review, their lawyers, and thin-skinned politicians everywhere.
The former have the motive, means, and opportunity.
Follow the money.
E
On the post: Verizon-Funded Group Claims Killing Net Neutrality Would Really Help Puerto Rico Right Now
Editor around?
Also, when you read an EDITORIAL on THE HILL don't expect anything other than an OPINION of an A-****.
E
On the post: How To Avoid Future Krack-Like Failures: Create Well-Maintained 'Fat' Protocols Using Initial Coin Offerings
The thing you know... and the thing on which you opine...
Scott Greenfield rails against "law prawfs" who offer legal advice but haven't a clue how the real world works.
Techdirt rails against LEOs chattering about "golden back door key cuffs magic" but really don't have a clue how encryption works.
This article is in the same boat suggesting ICOs, something financial advisers from Jordan Belfort ("Wolf of Wall Street") to Prince Alwaleed telling people to STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ICOs and that they're going to be the next Enron. Posters above me have already excoriated you for missing the entire point that buying IC is not "investing" and it's not "payment" and it's only a "gamble" with little upside and lots of downside.
We don't want to create a system where we pay real life coders, developers, bug-hunters, or experts based on a gamble in which they don't have any control of the dice, the roll, the size of the bet, or the payoff odds.
Sorry, Glyn, you're usually on-point, but this one missed the point by somewhere just north of 179.9°.
Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ US
Don't follow me.
On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against Techdirt
Re: Re: Stick to the topic. You wanna talk about Harvey go to a forum that discusses him.
E
On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against Techdirt
Stick to the topic. You wanna talk about Harvey go to a forum that discusses him.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
E
On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against Techdirt
Delusional people don't give up easily
Part of his delusional maniacal desire that the world recognize his genius for inventing EMAIL is because he is an ugly little boy born in a society that values caste, and he was of the lowest. His efforts since that, his lying under the guise of self-promotion (but is it lying if you believe it?) and his unwillingness to accept anything but his own made-up story... those are the signs of a sick mind.
I hope this ugly little boy gets the help he needs before all these losses in the courts make him realize just how little he has contributed, and how worthless he is, and what a fool he makes of himself, the Indian people, and the know-nothings (of tech) who support him.
It's very sad. I pity him.
Ehud
On the post: How The RIAA Helped Pave The Way For Spain To Undermine Democracy
Re: Re: Illegal content
Being in possession of the data or transferring that data within countries that outlaw those _actions_ of _people_ is unlawful _behavior_ on the part of the _people_. The data are innocent.
And with that I'll say no more ;)
Good morning :)
E
On the post: Larry Lessig's Latest Big Challenge: Fixing The Way We Elect A President
Re: Election changes
The House and the Senate have made sure to consolidate power over these last 230 years so that WE can't change any of THEIR systems; WE can't call a Constitutional Convention.
WE should be Content.
WE should be Compliant.
WE should give them more of our money.
E
On the post: Larry Lessig's Latest Big Challenge: Fixing The Way We Elect A President
The Great Compromise of 1787
When the framers of this country considered representation they wanted to respect the rights of all people. However, many of the tiny eastern states (e.g. Delaware, Rhode Island) would have a lot less say in federal matters than larger territories cum states such as California, Deseret, etc.
The "Great Compromise" called for creating two houses of Congress. One would have equal representation based on the population of the states -- that is the House of Representatives, although it guarantees a two-representative minimum. The other house would have an equal number of representatives from every states -- that is the Senate.
The Great Compromise called that states' votes for the President would be a sum of the fixed reps (2 senators) and the variable reps (2+ representatives). That is the basis for the vote distribution.
When one says it's difficult to justify the [continued] existence of the electoral college one should reflect on how it's designed to balance the large-population states' rights with the small-population states' rights. It is NOT designed to balance the rights of individual voters! That was NOT its goal and it certainly does NOT do that and will NEVER do that.
So jumping from an understanding of why we have it, an informed voter may say "Well one man one vote, so get rid of the electoral college." The same voter may then consider that if we truly had one man one vote then STATES no longer have power over the election. (This also obviates the "winner take all" problem). It would mean lots of changes, some good, and some not so good:
o Candidates would rarely stump in rural areas
o In areas of predominantly red or blue states, the disenfranchised people would finally get to vote
As a fan of true democracy -- which this country doesn't do -- I would love to see the removal of the electoral college and replacement with verified secure accountable transparent voting by the population of citizens for the office of President of the United States.
For the reasons cited above I don't expect the States of the Union and the politicians running them to support removal of their power anytime ever.
Ehud Gavron
US Citizen and a blue guy in a red state
On the post: How The RIAA Helped Pave The Way For Spain To Undermine Democracy
Re: Re: Re: Tenuous link is tenuous.
WRONG ARTICLE.
E
On the post: How The RIAA Helped Pave The Way For Spain To Undermine Democracy
Illegal content
Did someone replace the regular TechDirt editors with someone from the RIAA?
There's no such thing as illegal (or unlawful) content. Content does not violate a civil or criminal statute. Only people can do that and incur civil or criminal penalties.
Please do all your readers a favor and never ever say "illegal content" again as if it's a thing.
It's not.
E
On the post: NSA Employees Routinely Undermined 'Non-Attributable' Web Access With Personal Web Use
IC "security" is ... stupid... or incompetent?
A hacker as "shortsighted" so as to use a pool of 200 addresses from which to launch attacks would be laughed out of any room at DEFCON. How even worse that our vaunted intelligence services are stupider than that.
There's some comparison in the article (twice) to Russian Hackers obfuscating their IP addresses. The point is missed that Russian hackers DID obfuscate their IP addresses. The US IC people were stupid. Or incompetent.
E
On the post: Vermont State Police Rewrite Press Rules To Withhold As Much Information As Possible
Nononsensetech: (was: Re: intellisensetech)
Aside from being illiterate, and spam, this is nothing more than a cry for help for Intellisense[sic] idiots.
I sure hope Intellisense[sice] goes out of business soon or stops spamming techdirt. Me personally, I'd rather the former.
E
On the post: Charles Harder Loses Again: You Can't Just File Defamation Lawsuits In A Random State Because You Like Its Statute Of Limitations
Charles Harder should work a little smarter
...use his powers for evil.
Try smarter, Charles, not harder.
E
On the post: Charles Harder Sues Yet Again: Files Highly Questionable Lawsuit Against Jezebel
Charles Harder - the new troll
He makes Prenda looks good.
What a steaming turd he is. Sadly if he's successful others will copy his buffoonish style.
E
On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
Congratulations!
Next >>