I'm not convinced it's limited purely to "one IP address, one avatar", either.
In comment-thread arguments spanning multiple days, I fairly frequently see the "snowflake" avatar for one or more of the ACs involved change after two-or-so days, even in cases where there's no sign of that AC being one of our IP-address-hopping probable-TOR-user trolls.
I suspect that the generated avatar (and the mapping of same to IP address) has a finite and relatively brief storage lifetime, and that when that expires, the next post attempt from that IP address gets a new avatar generated regardless.
Just for a moment, don't look at it in terms of the change to Title II classification which took place under Wheeler.
Look at it in terms of the change from Title II classification which took place back in (IIRC) the late '90s - at how things were regulated before that, and at exactly what effectively changed in the regulation as a result of that change.
Was the regulation which was in place before that change heavy-handed and inappropriate for the Internet-access industry, as distinct from the other businesses in which ISPs were also engaging?
If so, isn't Wheeler having refrained from going back all the way to that full regulation a good thing?
And if not, how would having that full regulation in place be a bad thing?
No, Wheeler didn't apply the entirety of Title II's restrictions to the Internet-access industry - but that doesn't mean that Title II isn't the best available fit for that industry; there's a reason the FCC is permitted in the first place to forbear from applying some of the law's restrictions, after all.
As for "this needs to be handled by Congress"... while good legislation on this would be better than having it handled under existing law, that doesn't mean that handling it under existing law is bad, and it's certainly far more likely that bringing Congress into the mix would produce a worse result than that it would lead to actual good legislation. (Partly because of today's overall political climate, partly because of the stupid framing of the issue as a partisan one, and partly because most members of Congress - even more than members of the public in general - don't even realize the extent to which they don't understand the issue.) As such, bringing up Congress is a distraction from the (part of the) argument which is actually at hand.
If, having read that article and applied what it explains to the situation you're observing, you still think it's RICO - in that case, fine, and I might well be interested in a detailed, point-by-point explanation of exactly how the RICO criteria laid out in that article are satisfied in the case at hand. (Such an explanation would also be the first step towards getting an actual RICO action set in motion, I suspect.)
Given how rare actual RICO-applicable cases are, however, I'm not likely to hold my breath waiting.
The FCC should never have moved Internet service providers away from Title II to start with.
You know, something like 20 years ago.
Sure, classify their non-ISP services - which at the time were things like providing Website hosting, E-mail accounts, and so forth - as information services; that's reasonable.
But Internet access service itself is clearly a Title II telecommunications service, and classifying it as an information service was the original mistake in this.
the FCC was created with the understanding that they would regulation the sector as a natural monopoly meaning that it was in lock step with creating/establishing monopolies for these businesses and to regulate them as such.
Did you read the article?
A natural monopoly is neither created nor established; if it were, it would not be natural.
The mention of "natural monopolies" at the establishment of the FCC is about recognizing that these markets are natural monopolies, whether or not any regulations exist around them.
Considering the judgement is only for $20,000 and basically "stop using Comic-Con for your event", I don't see much benefit in tossing another huge pile of money down the toilet for an appeal.
The benefit, aside from being able to use the generic phrase "Comic Con" to describe their event, is...
Other events that have been using the Comic-Con moniker to describe their events will likely have to take steps to either obtain a license, or come up with some other term to describe their events.
...avoiding the necessity of this happening.
Locking up a descriptive phrase to one particular entity is an undesirable thing, and is not the best outcome for either the public or the market. (I'm reminded of the case of the "Tower Defense" trademark, in which a generic term - literally, one that describes an entire genre of games - was ruled to be owned by one relatively minor player.)
Accepting "the bad guys won" is not a good outcome, particularly in a case that affects so many more people than just the ones directly involved - and I think that the fact that I don't find it particularly surprising for you to suggest it is a little saddening.
Even beyond authoritarian / libertarian, it actually makes more sense (IMO) to use a multi-axis system.
The one I know best is the one presented by The Political Compass, which defines left/right as an economic axis and uses libertarian/authoritarian as the other axis.
They provide various plottings of historical figures and recent/current politicians, of various regions, on their chart, based on what is known of those people's views.
They also provide a sizable "quiz" which you can use to determine where you fall on the chart. It's not exactly unquestionable, but it seems reasonable from what I can tell.
Everyone I've ever gotten to take that quiz and let me know their result has come out "left libertarian", and most of them have been further in at least one of those directions than Gandhi. (This is probably reflective of sample bias more than anything else.)
By contrast, every US politician whom I've seen appear on the chart except Bernie Sanders has been in one of the other three quadrants - and the large majority of them, like the bulk of politicians and parties from elsewhere in the world, have been in the "right authoritarian" quadrant.
(Bernie, IIRC, was somewhat left of center and right about exactly at the zero point on authoritarian vs. libertarian.)
Would you care to explain what that way is, and what the regulations preventing it from (so to speak) "going live" are?
Note that by "a way to handle it", I don't just mean a technical solution, which is indeed certainly already known; I mean something that encompasses the entire structure, from the technical details to the economics of it all to the licensing aspects to probably other things I can't focus in on right now - the whole shaboozle.
If nothing else, the economics of having people sitting there behind a news desk waiting to provide commentary on whatever comes along as soon as it happens don't seem easy to work out for something without the economic might of something like the cable behemoths. And while having people doing that has downsides (the constant pressure to give coverage to things that really shouldn't be newsworthy, just because there's nothing better to cover at the time, for example), I'm not sure I see any other way to make sure that you have people available for real-time commentary at any given moment.
Date of birth still determines the age at which you shift from "early retirement" to simple "retirement", which is an important thing that needs tracking in some companies' employee-compensation systems.
Whether the benefits of designing a system such that it needs to track that outweigh the disadvantages of storing the date of birth is another question.
If the guy (or girl) is so desperate to hide their identity, you have to wonder why. If complying under duress with the DMCA notice is preferable to exposure, then their identify is significant.
The reason seems clear to me: because lack of anonymity would expose the writer to what a commenter above called "extrajudicial punishment", not just by this one MLM company, but by any of the (I presume numerous) others which the blog targets - now or in the future. That holds true even if nothing else the blogger has done is in any way legally questionable.
Also, where do you get "under duress" from? I don't recall seeing any indication that he exhibited any objection or resistance to taking down the objectionable link; it's entirely possible that he didn't realize (either as an honest mistake, or as an oops-I-didn't-make-that-connection oversight) that putting it up could be infringing, and that he had no problem with voluntarily taking it down as soon as he knew.
The legal rationale is that the Fourth Amendment is adhered to during the collection process, so it cannot possibly be violated when the collections are accessed by the FBI, NSA, CIA or other IC component.
But... I kind of thought the objection (or one of them) was that the Fourth Amendment is not being adhered to during the collection process.
Also, how does this fit with the "your privacy is not violated until someone actually looks at the data" line of reasoning, which (IIRC) multiple surveillance defenders have presented? The position taken in that argument is that the collection of the data does not constitute a search, and only when someone looks at the data does a search occur, so as long as no one looks at any collected US-person communications without a warrant the Fourth Amendment is not violated.
If the collection of the data is not a search, then the Fourth Amendment is not involved at that stage, so the Fourth Amendment's requirements cannot have been satisfied at that point; a warrant must be required at the "someone looks at it" stage.
If the collection of the data is a search, then the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement would seem to apply at the collection stage - and no warrant of sufficient particularity to be valid can possibly authorize bulk collection of the volume of data from the multiplicity of sources which is and are involved in practice.
I think these are supposed to be a contrast. I.e., "He's already shown that he can take on the biggest Internet companies and win, so he's likely to have more of a problem with raising money than he will with that."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
As I put it six-plus months ago (and other people posted online, quoting me; I didn't really have a place to say it at the time):
"Donald Trump's credibility is so poor at this point that if I heard that he'd announced that the sky was blue, I would literally want to go outside and check."
That is not in any way an exaggeration, or a misuse of the word "literally".
Under the logic underlying the Third-Party Doctrine - which I don't like, for its conclusion, but have had a hard time trying to refute - no one has a privacy rights in anyone else's information, and the fact that someone else has collected it does not change it into being that someone's information.
Thus, although the individual (the first party) could assert a privacy right in his or her own information if it were still under his or her control, and the company (the third party) could assert a privacy right in the company's own information, the company cannot assert a privacy right in the individual's information, and the individual cannot assert a privacy right in information the individual no longer controls.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
I can live with these assholes, I just can't stand by and let ignorant liars advance lies, ignorance, or hypocrisy like they are superior while talking down to everyone else like they are inferior.
On the post: It Was Twenty(-odd) Years Ago Today When The Internet Looked Much Different Than It Does Now
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice story
In comment-thread arguments spanning multiple days, I fairly frequently see the "snowflake" avatar for one or more of the ACs involved change after two-or-so days, even in cases where there's no sign of that AC being one of our IP-address-hopping probable-TOR-user trolls.
I suspect that the generated avatar (and the mapping of same to IP address) has a finite and relatively brief storage lifetime, and that when that expires, the next post attempt from that IP address gets a new avatar generated regardless.
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just for a moment, don't look at it in terms of the change to Title II classification which took place under Wheeler.
Look at it in terms of the change from Title II classification which took place back in (IIRC) the late '90s - at how things were regulated before that, and at exactly what effectively changed in the regulation as a result of that change.
Was the regulation which was in place before that change heavy-handed and inappropriate for the Internet-access industry, as distinct from the other businesses in which ISPs were also engaging?
If so, isn't Wheeler having refrained from going back all the way to that full regulation a good thing?
And if not, how would having that full regulation in place be a bad thing?
No, Wheeler didn't apply the entirety of Title II's restrictions to the Internet-access industry - but that doesn't mean that Title II isn't the best available fit for that industry; there's a reason the FCC is permitted in the first place to forbear from applying some of the law's restrictions, after all.
As for "this needs to be handled by Congress"... while good legislation on this would be better than having it handled under existing law, that doesn't mean that handling it under existing law is bad, and it's certainly far more likely that bringing Congress into the mix would produce a worse result than that it would lead to actual good legislation. (Partly because of today's overall political climate, partly because of the stupid framing of the issue as a partisan one, and partly because most members of Congress - even more than members of the public in general - don't even realize the extent to which they don't understand the issue.) As such, bringing up Congress is a distraction from the (part of the) argument which is actually at hand.
On the post: FCC Boss 'Jokes' About Being A 'Verizon Puppet' At Tone Deaf Industry Gala
Re: Re: Re: Verizon and Pai handed every state everything they needed to shut them down, shut them down hard!!!
Here's the article I suspect he(?) was referencing. Have you read it?
If, having read that article and applied what it explains to the situation you're observing, you still think it's RICO - in that case, fine, and I might well be interested in a detailed, point-by-point explanation of exactly how the RICO criteria laid out in that article are satisfied in the case at hand. (Such an explanation would also be the first step towards getting an actual RICO action set in motion, I suspect.)
Given how rare actual RICO-applicable cases are, however, I'm not likely to hold my breath waiting.
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Internet is not.
Internet access is.
Please stop conflating the two in your arguments.
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The FCC should never have moved Internet service providers away from Title II to start with.
You know, something like 20 years ago.
Sure, classify their non-ISP services - which at the time were things like providing Website hosting, E-mail accounts, and so forth - as information services; that's reasonable.
But Internet access service itself is clearly a Title II telecommunications service, and classifying it as an information service was the original mistake in this.
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: When there's no competition...
Did you read the article?
A natural monopoly is neither created nor established; if it were, it would not be natural.
The mention of "natural monopolies" at the establishment of the FCC is about recognizing that these markets are natural monopolies, whether or not any regulations exist around them.
On the post: Court Holds NYPD In Contempt For Refusing To Hand Over Documents Related To Black Live Matter Surveillance
Re: Deplorable To See Teh Courts Take The Law Into There Own Hands
On the post: SLCC Rankles Judge With Social Media Posts As A Jury Prepares To Rule
Re: Re: Re:
The benefit, aside from being able to use the generic phrase "Comic Con" to describe their event, is...
...avoiding the necessity of this happening.
Locking up a descriptive phrase to one particular entity is an undesirable thing, and is not the best outcome for either the public or the market. (I'm reminded of the case of the "Tower Defense" trademark, in which a generic term - literally, one that describes an entire genre of games - was ruled to be owned by one relatively minor player.)
Accepting "the bad guys won" is not a good outcome, particularly in a case that affects so many more people than just the ones directly involved - and I think that the fact that I don't find it particularly surprising for you to suggest it is a little saddening.
On the post: Shocker: Study Finds Cord Cutting Very Real, TV Execs Still Failing To Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, again, what regulations are preventing it? I honestly can't think of any that would seem to be getting in the way.
On the post: India Embraces Full Net Neutrality As The U.S. Turns Its Back On The Concept
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even beyond authoritarian / libertarian, it actually makes more sense (IMO) to use a multi-axis system.
The one I know best is the one presented by The Political Compass, which defines left/right as an economic axis and uses libertarian/authoritarian as the other axis.
They provide various plottings of historical figures and recent/current politicians, of various regions, on their chart, based on what is known of those people's views.
They also provide a sizable "quiz" which you can use to determine where you fall on the chart. It's not exactly unquestionable, but it seems reasonable from what I can tell.
Everyone I've ever gotten to take that quiz and let me know their result has come out "left libertarian", and most of them have been further in at least one of those directions than Gandhi. (This is probably reflective of sample bias more than anything else.)
By contrast, every US politician whom I've seen appear on the chart except Bernie Sanders has been in one of the other three quadrants - and the large majority of them, like the bulk of politicians and parties from elsewhere in the world, have been in the "right authoritarian" quadrant.
(Bernie, IIRC, was somewhat left of center and right about exactly at the zero point on authoritarian vs. libertarian.)
On the post: Shocker: Study Finds Cord Cutting Very Real, TV Execs Still Failing To Adapt
Re: Re: Re:
Would you care to explain what that way is, and what the regulations preventing it from (so to speak) "going live" are?
Note that by "a way to handle it", I don't just mean a technical solution, which is indeed certainly already known; I mean something that encompasses the entire structure, from the technical details to the economics of it all to the licensing aspects to probably other things I can't focus in on right now - the whole shaboozle.
If nothing else, the economics of having people sitting there behind a news desk waiting to provide commentary on whatever comes along as soon as it happens don't seem easy to work out for something without the economic might of something like the cable behemoths. And while having people doing that has downsides (the constant pressure to give coverage to things that really shouldn't be newsworthy, just because there's nothing better to cover at the time, for example), I'm not sure I see any other way to make sure that you have people available for real-time commentary at any given moment.
On the post: Shocker: Study Finds Cord Cutting Very Real, TV Execs Still Failing To Adapt
Re:
In other words: mainly news, with a side of sports, and commentary on both.
Once a way to handle that via on-demand streaming without consumer lock-in is found, I suspect the decline of cable TV will accelerate rapidly.
On the post: UK Court Says Company Is Innocent In Massive Data Breach Caused By Vindictive Employee, But Must Nonetheless Pay Compensation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oversight by companies
Whether the benefits of designing a system such that it needs to track that outweigh the disadvantages of storing the date of birth is another question.
On the post: Appeals Court Can't Decide Whether It Should Protect Critic's Anonymity, Boots Free Speech Case Back To Lower Court
Re:
The reason seems clear to me: because lack of anonymity would expose the writer to what a commenter above called "extrajudicial punishment", not just by this one MLM company, but by any of the (I presume numerous) others which the blog targets - now or in the future. That holds true even if nothing else the blogger has done is in any way legally questionable.
Also, where do you get "under duress" from? I don't recall seeing any indication that he exhibited any objection or resistance to taking down the objectionable link; it's entirely possible that he didn't realize (either as an honest mistake, or as an oops-I-didn't-make-that-connection oversight) that putting it up could be infringing, and that he had no problem with voluntarily taking it down as soon as he knew.
On the post: Things The Intelligence Community Is Cool With: Backdoor Searches, Skirting Reporting Requirements, Parallel Construction
Legal rationale
But... I kind of thought the objection (or one of them) was that the Fourth Amendment is not being adhered to during the collection process.
Also, how does this fit with the "your privacy is not violated until someone actually looks at the data" line of reasoning, which (IIRC) multiple surveillance defenders have presented? The position taken in that argument is that the collection of the data does not constitute a search, and only when someone looks at the data does a search occur, so as long as no one looks at any collected US-person communications without a warrant the Fourth Amendment is not violated.
If the collection of the data is not a search, then the Fourth Amendment is not involved at that stage, so the Fourth Amendment's requirements cannot have been satisfied at that point; a warrant must be required at the "someone looks at it" stage.
If the collection of the data is a search, then the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement would seem to apply at the collection stage - and no warrant of sufficient particularity to be valid can possibly authorize bulk collection of the volume of data from the multiplicity of sources which is and are involved in practice.
On the post: Top EU Privacy Campaigner Says He Wants Lots Of Money For 'None Of Your Business'
Re:
On the post: Trump Tweet About Surveillance Undercuts FBI's Glomar Responses In FOIA Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
"Donald Trump's credibility is so poor at this point that if I heard that he'd announced that the sky was blue, I would literally want to go outside and check."
That is not in any way an exaggeration, or a misuse of the word "literally".
On the post: As Net Neutrality Repeal Nears, Comcast's Promise To Avoid 'Paid Prioritization' Disappears
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
We'd certainly all be better off if he could manage that.
On the post: Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Cell Site Location Info Case
Re:
Under the logic underlying the Third-Party Doctrine - which I don't like, for its conclusion, but have had a hard time trying to refute - no one has a privacy rights in anyone else's information, and the fact that someone else has collected it does not change it into being that someone's information.
Thus, although the individual (the first party) could assert a privacy right in his or her own information if it were still under his or her control, and the company (the third party) could assert a privacy right in the company's own information, the company cannot assert a privacy right in the individual's information, and the individual cannot assert a privacy right in information the individual no longer controls.
On the post: As Net Neutrality Repeal Nears, Comcast's Promise To Avoid 'Paid Prioritization' Disappears
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
So, are you a pot, or a kettle?
Next >>