[W]hy didn't more people in the media push back on this nonsense story?
Easy. Because when you're a journalism student, you aren't required to know/learn anything about how the internet works, nor about security of anything at all, nor of..... need I go on?
Why weren't more people saying there were more important things to worry about?
Welcome to the world of sound-bites, the culture where the it doesn't matter what was said, only that it was stated in 15 seconds or less. Any item requiring more time is relegated to the late-night talking heads. And yes, it's a fookin' shame, but that's what the advertisers want - a lot of in-between spots to dragoon your ears/eyes for some good old fashioned craptastic blathering about nothing that'd ever interest you.
... simply buy Australia outright. They're worth about 900B (USD) right now (give or take a few million), and Australia's GDP is just over 1.3T (USD). That's close enough for investment purposes, I should think. And if they need to raise just a bit more capital, they could go their employees, and ask "Hey, wanna be a part-owner of an entire country?"
Naw, on second thought, there'd be too many rabble rousers that would constantly cause more trouble than the place is worth. Never mind.
I didn't use the word "invented", I said "Father" - but that was not the best choice of words, I admit and agree. I should've said something like "he helped kickstart it by both proselytizing for it and voting for necessary funding, starting in 1977 as a House Representative." Even at that time, well before Tim Berners-Lee did invent the Internet, he saw something like what we finally got, though no one at the time was sure what to call such a beast as a collection of widely spread out computers from all sorts of places.
No, I alluded to how the good Senator from Oregon (not my home state, BTW) does not stoop to that level. Which in turn makes them lucky, for he'd pretty much embarrass them beyond endurance, I'm sure.
Their words are probably far more accurate and necessary than this "I am not a lawyer" interpretation of them.
Damn, son, you really don't know that C. Gellis is a considered to be a top-level lawyer, do you? Look her up on that thing you believe is nothing more than so much digital toilet paper.
The Lawyer's Perpetual Employment Act, part 193 (and counting).
Ya know, Al Gore claimed to`be the Father of the Internet because he's the one who cast the deciding vote in funding DARPA, way back when. But Ron Wyden is the one who gave us a usable Internet, warts and all. I daresay that the anti-230'ers are damned lucky that Wyden doesn't sue them for tortious interference with a proven mechanism for empowering the citizenry of the USA.
That was my first reaction, too. Bretschneider should be happy that LZ didn't bother to raise a fuss, and sad that he didn't get any subsequent free publicity. And yes, if the reported attendance records are even close to correct, then indeed there is ample suspicion that this suit may be financially motivated.
If I were TS, I'd just offer to buy the whole park, lock, stock and barrel, and then turn it into a charitable destination for kids with cancer, or something similar. That'd show Utah's public officials what class looks like, Swift-style. Oh, and buy it for what it's actually worth, not what Bretschneider thinks it's worth.
... the company to temporarily erase and back up the employee's files to another part of the network
This requires both extra work and diligence on the part of a network admin. What happens if the reporter/lawyer files a document, and moments later the Secret Police break down his door and demand the computer, etc.? Security is all in the timing.
Some might think that a server-side script to automate this would be a good idea, but the timing is the thing - it still might not be fast enough.
Better would be to simply have the remote computer log in each time with a script that creates a new folder on the server, using any of a variety of naming schema. This might chew up some storage space, but it guarantees that a forensics investigator will not be able to divine the whereabouts of previous folders. At that point, it's better to leave the password stored by the OS and/or app, in some fashion, and usable by the investigator - such would seem "normal" to that person. An empty folder would raise concerns, but the explanation would be equally simple - "My employer (or network admin) must've moved it, I dunno".
Yes AC, citations are needed for each of the listed jurisdictions, if you please. I too would like to know why VPN passwords are immune to disclosure and/or scrutiny.
I"m not sure if this is a good summary, but my gut feeling here is that nuance is the opposite of emotion, which is the driving force behind the so-called cancel culture. Probably needs to be fleshed out though.
And for the record, I'm curious as to why I see (read into the article) #45's name about every other line. Anyone else get that too?
reverse-Charon is correct, beaucoup people have spent time in Crow-bar Hotel for not revealing their passwords, or otherwise opening their devices (not just phones) for Polizie inspection. One need only look at past pages of TD for confirmation of this, but a quick DuckDuckGo search reveals DeHart, Rawls, and other in similar straits.
And Thad's statement notwithstanding, I do blame Malik for lack of foresight. Just because one government entity likes you, that does NOT preclude other government entities from disliking you - we all know that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, right? Or even worse, the second hand does indeed know what the first hand is doing, and capriciously thwarts their efforts out of mere spite (or perhaps jealousy, who knows). Ditto for persons within one entity.
If you really and truly must use a phone for sensitive stuff, then use a simple dumb phone (aka burner) as a conduit to remote servers, like Upstream explained above. Then dispose of it before traveling where Gendarme interference is quite likely to be the order of the day. If you simply must call someone before getting all the way back home, pick up another burner - they're too cheap not to do this.
As AC says above (Licensing Act), read the statute. Or in our case, 1A:
... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
That's the fifth of six clauses therein. I'm pretty sure that the common definitions of our Founding Fathers still pertain today - peaceful, and assemble. I hope I don't need to go any deeper, yes?
So, two things spring to mind immediately:
a) The third clause of 1A (pertaining to speech) is not the heart of the matter, it's the fifth clause that controls whether someone wishes to get together ("assemble") with other people. Since the Supreme Court has declared that a corporation (or other private entity) is a person, and has all rights pertinent thereto, it follows that if a larger, but private, company does not wish to assemble, commune, congregate, meet with, or otherwise entertain a mutual relationship with Rowdy Person X, then there's no way Congress (or any State) can write a law that forces them to do so. That's what we call putting paid to the account.
b) Being as the word peaceful cannot in any way, shape or form be applied to the Red Hat Insurrection, it follows that each of those participants have mis-construed 1A, and are not gonna have any defense in this matter that relies on any part of 1A. To my mind, about the only defense they'll have that might work is begging for the court's mercy, as they contritely and ardently claim that they drank #45's Flavor-Aid, and are only now waking up to the reality of their actions. Might not be enough, but it's the best I can offer.
On the post: Orrin Hatch, Who Once Wanted To Destroy The Computers Of Anyone Who Infringed On Copyrights, Now Lies About Section 230
Re:
Interesting = hideous? repulsive? merely asinine? Hard to tell...
Oh, wait.... I know! It'd be a colossal waste of tax payer's dollars. That's it, I'm sure.
On the post: Trump And Oracle's Dumb TikTok Cronyism Falls Apart
Re: Blame the media
Easy. Because when you're a journalism student, you aren't required to know/learn anything about how the internet works, nor about security of anything at all, nor of..... need I go on?
Welcome to the world of sound-bites, the culture where the it doesn't matter what was said, only that it was stated in 15 seconds or less. Any item requiring more time is relegated to the late-night talking heads. And yes, it's a fookin' shame, but that's what the advertisers want - a lot of in-between spots to dragoon your ears/eyes for some good old fashioned craptastic blathering about nothing that'd ever interest you.
On the post: Snippet Taxes Not Only Violate The Berne Convention, But Also Betray The Deepest Roots Of Newspaper Culture
What Alphabet should do is....
... simply buy Australia outright. They're worth about 900B (USD) right now (give or take a few million), and Australia's GDP is just over 1.3T (USD). That's close enough for investment purposes, I should think. And if they need to raise just a bit more capital, they could go their employees, and ask "Hey, wanna be a part-owner of an entire country?"
Naw, on second thought, there'd be too many rabble rousers that would constantly cause more trouble than the place is worth. Never mind.
On the post: 16 States Ask The FCC What The Hell Is The Point Of The Verizon Tracfone Merger
Re: for the dough
Another fix. All in a day's work, I assure you.
On the post: 16 States Ask The FCC What The Hell Is The Point Of The Verizon Tracfone Merger
Re: Re:
T,FTFY
On the post: Now It's The Democrats Turn To Destroy The Open Internet: Mark Warner's 230 Reform Bill Is A Dumpster Fire Of Cluelessness
Re: Re: An honest person would call this...
Well, lessee here....
I didn't use the word "invented", I said "Father" - but that was not the best choice of words, I admit and agree. I should've said something like "he helped kickstart it by both proselytizing for it and voting for necessary funding, starting in 1977 as a House Representative." Even at that time, well before Tim Berners-Lee did invent the Internet, he saw something like what we finally got, though no one at the time was sure what to call such a beast as a collection of widely spread out computers from all sorts of places.
On the post: Now It's The Democrats Turn To Destroy The Open Internet: Mark Warner's 230 Reform Bill Is A Dumpster Fire Of Cluelessness
Re: Re: An honest person would call this...
No, I alluded to how the good Senator from Oregon (not my home state, BTW) does not stoop to that level. Which in turn makes them lucky, for he'd pretty much embarrass them beyond endurance, I'm sure.
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Claims about the demise of the Internet
Well, yes, the internet as we know it will be grossly (and crassly) transformed: Welcome to QVC, 2nd edition.
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Re: Re: Chicken-little garbage
Damn, son, you really don't know that C. Gellis is a considered to be a top-level lawyer, do you? Look her up on that thing you believe is nothing more than so much digital toilet paper.
On the post: Senators Warner, Hirono, And Klobuchar Demand The End Of The Internet Economy
Re: Re: Senators Demand End of Internet Economy
aka, they accept lobbyist donations for parroting the highest bidder's desires.
On the post: Now It's The Democrats Turn To Destroy The Open Internet: Mark Warner's 230 Reform Bill Is A Dumpster Fire Of Cluelessness
An honest person would call this...
The Lawyer's Perpetual Employment Act, part 193 (and counting).
Ya know, Al Gore claimed to`be the Father of the Internet because he's the one who cast the deciding vote in funding DARPA, way back when. But Ron Wyden is the one who gave us a usable Internet, warts and all. I daresay that the anti-230'ers are damned lucky that Wyden doesn't sue them for tortious interference with a proven mechanism for empowering the citizenry of the USA.
Shakespeare had it right.....
On the post: Utah Theme Park Sues Taylor Swift Over Album Title After Exploiting It
Re: Re: nEvermore
No, it's an up-to-date variable naming system. Hungarian style is so 80's....
On the post: Utah Theme Park Sues Taylor Swift Over Album Title After Exploiting It
Re:
That was my first reaction, too. Bretschneider should be happy that LZ didn't bother to raise a fuss, and sad that he didn't get any subsequent free publicity. And yes, if the reported attendance records are even close to correct, then indeed there is ample suspicion that this suit may be financially motivated.
If I were TS, I'd just offer to buy the whole park, lock, stock and barrel, and then turn it into a charitable destination for kids with cancer, or something similar. That'd show Utah's public officials what class looks like, Swift-style. Oh, and buy it for what it's actually worth, not what Bretschneider thinks it's worth.
On the post: Texas Immigration Lawyer Sues DHS, CBP Over Seizure And Search Of His Work Phone
Re: Re: Re:
This requires both extra work and diligence on the part of a network admin. What happens if the reporter/lawyer files a document, and moments later the Secret Police break down his door and demand the computer, etc.? Security is all in the timing.
Some might think that a server-side script to automate this would be a good idea, but the timing is the thing - it still might not be fast enough.
Better would be to simply have the remote computer log in each time with a script that creates a new folder on the server, using any of a variety of naming schema. This might chew up some storage space, but it guarantees that a forensics investigator will not be able to divine the whereabouts of previous folders. At that point, it's better to leave the password stored by the OS and/or app, in some fashion, and usable by the investigator - such would seem "normal" to that person. An empty folder would raise concerns, but the explanation would be equally simple - "My employer (or network admin) must've moved it, I dunno".
On the post: Texas Immigration Lawyer Sues DHS, CBP Over Seizure And Search Of His Work Phone
Re:
Yes AC, citations are needed for each of the listed jurisdictions, if you please. I too would like to know why VPN passwords are immune to disclosure and/or scrutiny.
On the post: Professional Assholes Equate Consequences With 'Cancel Culture' To Obscure That They're Finally Being Held Accountable
Re:
I rate this a good 95, Dick! It's got a solid beat, and I can dance to it!
On the post: Professional Assholes Equate Consequences With 'Cancel Culture' To Obscure That They're Finally Being Held Accountable
I"m not sure if this is a good summary, but my gut feeling here is that nuance is the opposite of emotion, which is the driving force behind the so-called cancel culture. Probably needs to be fleshed out though.
And for the record, I'm curious as to why I see (read into the article) #45's name about every other line. Anyone else get that too?
On the post: Texas Immigration Lawyer Sues DHS, CBP Over Seizure And Search Of His Work Phone
reverse-Charon is correct, beaucoup people have spent time in Crow-bar Hotel for not revealing their passwords, or otherwise opening their devices (not just phones) for Polizie inspection. One need only look at past pages of TD for confirmation of this, but a quick DuckDuckGo search reveals DeHart, Rawls, and other in similar straits.
And Thad's statement notwithstanding, I do blame Malik for lack of foresight. Just because one government entity likes you, that does NOT preclude other government entities from disliking you - we all know that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, right? Or even worse, the second hand does indeed know what the first hand is doing, and capriciously thwarts their efforts out of mere spite (or perhaps jealousy, who knows). Ditto for persons within one entity.
If you really and truly must use a phone for sensitive stuff, then use a simple dumb phone (aka burner) as a conduit to remote servers, like Upstream explained above. Then dispose of it before traveling where Gendarme interference is quite likely to be the order of the day. If you simply must call someone before getting all the way back home, pick up another burner - they're too cheap not to do this.
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
On a separate note:
We have a name for that, it's called "political discourse". The winner is the one who infuses a distortion most like the listener's personal reality.
Don't. Just don't get me started, you won't want to live long enough to hear my full diatribe/screed on the subject. Trust me on this one.
On the post: Columbia Law Professor Spews Blatantly False Information About Section 230 In The Wall Street Journal
As AC says above (Licensing Act), read the statute. Or in our case, 1A:
That's the fifth of six clauses therein. I'm pretty sure that the common definitions of our Founding Fathers still pertain today - peaceful, and assemble. I hope I don't need to go any deeper, yes?
So, two things spring to mind immediately:
a) The third clause of 1A (pertaining to speech) is not the heart of the matter, it's the fifth clause that controls whether someone wishes to get together ("assemble") with other people. Since the Supreme Court has declared that a corporation (or other private entity) is a person, and has all rights pertinent thereto, it follows that if a larger, but private, company does not wish to assemble, commune, congregate, meet with, or otherwise entertain a mutual relationship with Rowdy Person X, then there's no way Congress (or any State) can write a law that forces them to do so. That's what we call putting paid to the account.
b) Being as the word peaceful cannot in any way, shape or form be applied to the Red Hat Insurrection, it follows that each of those participants have mis-construed 1A, and are not gonna have any defense in this matter that relies on any part of 1A. To my mind, about the only defense they'll have that might work is begging for the court's mercy, as they contritely and ardently claim that they drank #45's Flavor-Aid, and are only now waking up to the reality of their actions. Might not be enough, but it's the best I can offer.
Next >>