I find it amusing that everyone is blaming Clearview. (Not that I'm condoning their actions. Far from it...) The underlying issue is who is getting the data...law enforcement. "Well gee, if the cops don't have this information, they can't burst into homes with a battering ram, and possibly kill people."
In the land of sanity, people would be arguing that law enforcement shouldn't be doing that to start with. Then again, is way easier to go after one company then go after a much bigger organization that is not only their customer, but is also causing the actual problem.
That mechanism has become useless. People who don't even know such a thing exists, can now put up a website in 30 minutes with the tools offered. That is, unless the Go Daddy's, et al. turn on 'no web crawling' as the default. It's another arms race, just like when telcom offered robocalling and then call blocking became a thing as a result.
No one is claiming copyright on one a single word under the law. The problem is YouTube's system of allowing a one word response for what is the alleged infringement.
Scamming YouTube creators in this way is more common
I've heard YouTube creators battling this problem. Scammers are using this to temporarily divert funds. And they get to keep all they got. YouTube doesn't try to get the payments back. I would love to blame this all on bad federal law, but YouTube is more at fault for allowing money to be diverted without proof from the alleged copyright holder. It would be easy for YouTube to hold all disputed funds in escrow, until the issue of ownership is resolved.
When the largest country in the western world does it, why not?
No moral high ground for the U.S. here, unfortunately. We would have done it ourselves already, if not for the global info need of our intelligence community.
While there would be some benefit here of being able to instantly Trace any call, I could see the potential for a lot of law enforcement abuse that would easily outway the benefits of using it as a solution for the swatting problem.
I think the better solution to the problem would be to solve the one of law enforcement using SWAT teams at the drop of a hat. They're the people with the alleged training in situations like this. If we just need a bunch of guys that can pull a gun and use it, we can hire the guys from duck dynasty for a whole lot less.
This works well until the majority of people register their homes as no-kill zones. Then the cops will throw it out. But maybe that's just my cynicism. I should have realized sooner it was necessary to register with the government to get the protections granted by the Constitution. (Oops, there it goes again.)
You have to understand the Facebook business model. "We" are their product. Without people getting on FB directly, their whole business falls apart. Sure, they will host news articles posted by users. Provided, you have to log on to FB directly to get it. That is the source of their revenue, not what is being posted. That is why the third party apps you mention, are not allowed.
FB pulling things down is them being fearful of what actual government regulated moderation might arise, if they did not. The entertainment industry did the same with the voluntary Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system, back in the day. If that had not occurred, the government would have intervened, to force the issue.
Agreed. The mainstream media has not only gotten lazy, but they have put an emphasis on being the first to put out a story, as opposed to putting out an accurate one. So, they let others do the garbage collection for them. That is solely their fault. I don't fault Facebook or Twitter for that. News is not social media's purpose, and social media never claimed it to be, unless you've heard something I haven't.
The white elephant in the room is the fact that people use social platforms as a [sole] news source, instead of exercising independent thought and common sense. No legislation, or private action is going to do that for them. We all look at the symptoms, and never the actual problem. Anyone who allows their views to be shaped by social media is an idiot. They need to stop being lazy and do their own research. That goes for blindly following political parties during elections, as well.
On the post: Clearview Looking To Expand Its Market To Problematic Countries Known For Human Rights Abuses
The first rule of international business
If one country doesn't like what you are doing, go to one that does.
On the post: Google Says Clearview's Site Scraping Is Wrong; Clearview Reminds Google It Scrapes Sites All The Time
Shooting the wrong horse...
I find it amusing that everyone is blaming Clearview. (Not that I'm condoning their actions. Far from it...) The underlying issue is who is getting the data...law enforcement. "Well gee, if the cops don't have this information, they can't burst into homes with a battering ram, and possibly kill people."
In the land of sanity, people would be arguing that law enforcement shouldn't be doing that to start with. Then again, is way easier to go after one company then go after a much bigger organization that is not only their customer, but is also causing the actual problem.
On the post: Google Says Clearview's Site Scraping Is Wrong; Clearview Reminds Google It Scrapes Sites All The Time
Re:
In all fairness to Clearview, SWAT raids are not their fault, nor should they be. That's another issue caused by law enforcement.
On the post: Google Says Clearview's Site Scraping Is Wrong; Clearview Reminds Google It Scrapes Sites All The Time
Re: Re: Fair Use?
That mechanism has become useless. People who don't even know such a thing exists, can now put up a website in 30 minutes with the tools offered. That is, unless the Go Daddy's, et al. turn on 'no web crawling' as the default. It's another arms race, just like when telcom offered robocalling and then call blocking became a thing as a result.
On the post: Facial Recognition Developer Told Cops To Test Out The Software By Running Searches On Friends And Family
What about the CFAA?
"While it's not definitely illegal to violate sites' terms of service to scrape photos for resale, it's kind of discouraged."
It's my understanding that going against a site's terms of service, violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. I hadn't heard that this had changed.
On the post: YouTube Streamer Hit With Demonetization Over Copyright Claims To Numbers '36' And '50'
Re:
No one is claiming copyright on one a single word under the law. The problem is YouTube's system of allowing a one word response for what is the alleged infringement.
On the post: YouTube Streamer Hit With Demonetization Over Copyright Claims To Numbers '36' And '50'
Re:
It all gets scanned. That's not were the problem lies.
On the post: YouTube Streamer Hit With Demonetization Over Copyright Claims To Numbers '36' And '50'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The example given was a substantive new work.
On the post: YouTube Streamer Hit With Demonetization Over Copyright Claims To Numbers '36' And '50'
Scamming YouTube creators in this way is more common
I've heard YouTube creators battling this problem. Scammers are using this to temporarily divert funds. And they get to keep all they got. YouTube doesn't try to get the payments back. I would love to blame this all on bad federal law, but YouTube is more at fault for allowing money to be diverted without proof from the alleged copyright holder. It would be easy for YouTube to hold all disputed funds in escrow, until the issue of ownership is resolved.
On the post: Russia Disconnects Itself From The Internet, Asks UN To Let It Have More Control Of Internet Usage Around The World
When the largest country in the western world does it, why not?
No moral high ground for the U.S. here, unfortunately. We would have done it ourselves already, if not for the global info need of our intelligence community.
On the post: Russia Disconnects Itself From The Internet, Asks UN To Let It Have More Control Of Internet Usage Around The World
Re: Re:
I tend to agree AC. We grab everything and it does little.
On the post: Police Departments Are Using Swatting Registries To Help Protect Swatting Targets From Police Officers
Re: Default Options
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
On the post: Police Departments Are Using Swatting Registries To Help Protect Swatting Targets From Police Officers
Re: oh joy
I just heard that same comment from someone else I relayed the story to. It was the first thing out of his mouth.
On the post: Police Departments Are Using Swatting Registries To Help Protect Swatting Targets From Police Officers
Re:
While there would be some benefit here of being able to instantly Trace any call, I could see the potential for a lot of law enforcement abuse that would easily outway the benefits of using it as a solution for the swatting problem.
I think the better solution to the problem would be to solve the one of law enforcement using SWAT teams at the drop of a hat. They're the people with the alleged training in situations like this. If we just need a bunch of guys that can pull a gun and use it, we can hire the guys from duck dynasty for a whole lot less.
On the post: Police Departments Are Using Swatting Registries To Help Protect Swatting Targets From Police Officers
Re: Re: This works until...
Fear.
On the post: Police Departments Are Using Swatting Registries To Help Protect Swatting Targets From Police Officers
This works until...
This works well until the majority of people register their homes as no-kill zones. Then the cops will throw it out. But maybe that's just my cynicism. I should have realized sooner it was necessary to register with the government to get the protections granted by the Constitution. (Oops, there it goes again.)
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: The real problem
You have to understand the Facebook business model. "We" are their product. Without people getting on FB directly, their whole business falls apart. Sure, they will host news articles posted by users. Provided, you have to log on to FB directly to get it. That is the source of their revenue, not what is being posted. That is why the third party apps you mention, are not allowed.
FB pulling things down is them being fearful of what actual government regulated moderation might arise, if they did not. The entertainment industry did the same with the voluntary Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system, back in the day. If that had not occurred, the government would have intervened, to force the issue.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: The real problem
Agreed. The mainstream media has not only gotten lazy, but they have put an emphasis on being the first to put out a story, as opposed to putting out an accurate one. So, they let others do the garbage collection for them. That is solely their fault. I don't fault Facebook or Twitter for that. News is not social media's purpose, and social media never claimed it to be, unless you've heard something I haven't.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
Re: Re: The real problem
Political parties do for elections, what paint by numbers does for art.
On the post: While Trump Complains About Facebook Takedowns, Facebook Is Helping Trump Take Down Content He Doesn't Like
The real problem
The white elephant in the room is the fact that people use social platforms as a [sole] news source, instead of exercising independent thought and common sense. No legislation, or private action is going to do that for them. We all look at the symptoms, and never the actual problem. Anyone who allows their views to be shaped by social media is an idiot. They need to stop being lazy and do their own research. That goes for blindly following political parties during elections, as well.
Next >>