This is as bad an idea as unrestricted national surveillance.
Who decides when a journalist is telling the truth? A "Birther"? Exxon-Mobile? David Duke? Hillary Clinton? The 10,000 "grass root" pseudonyms purchased by one of the above?
The top two boxes should be replaced by one, labelled "Highest Bidder".
So, according to you, IMDB could completely end age discrimination in Hollywood by simply posting every actress' age as 24?
What utter idiocy. IMDB could not "un-facilitate" ageism by falsifying ages, any more than not publishing the ages would "un-facilitate" ageism.
If they can't "un-facilitate" then they are not facilitating. Simple as that.
I really wish some people would stop wanting to convict everyone who can possibly be construed as involved...that is, everyone except the person who actually "aimed and pulled the trigger."
No, not really. We want to live in an America where a 32-year-old can be cast as a 50-year old character; and the director doesn't prefer a 24-year old for the role because the 32-yaar-old is..."past her prime" I believe is the usual excuse.
We've already embraced the extortion business model. From copyright trolls to patent trolls to controlled obsolescence to data caps...all the most profitable new businesses get their revenue from arm-twisting "customers" to shell out for nothing.
The government just wants its shot at some of the same quick income.
Much easier to make showy convictions of "consumers." The public defender won't even make you prove it was child porn, and will most likely help arm-twist the "consumer" into a plea.
Expect a correction from the FBI any time now: there is no such thing as an "innocent" TOR user. The FBI sees TOR users hiding things...and people with things to hide are terrorists.
Re: Lack of consequences lead to escalation of criminal action.
What rock did you say you live under?
They already leak or outright publish anything they find "expiditious, profitable, or ass-covering." Been doing that for years. As well as clamming up when publicity would not be "expiditious, profitable, or ass-covering."
They're completely self-serving in that respect.
So now ask yourself: what did they expect to gain with their back-handed endorsement of Trump? Because I guarantee: they expected to gain something.
Of course they don't want to list Tier III: it includes every organization that isn't in Tiers I & II.
Some might object I left the word "terrorist" out of that statement but I didn't. I figure that, on the theory everyone is a terrorist, Tier III is all the organizations they identified but don't have proof of terrorism activity yet. It's the suspect list...and that list includes everyone.
Darn straight they don't want to list it: 7+ billion names takes a lot of paper.
But what probably mattered more was they thought Steven Talley "could be convicted." That is far too often the only criteria for prosecution these days, while in re guilt or innocence, the prosecutor says, "Meh."
The intelligence agencies are just going to come back with, "You say po-tay-toe, we say po-tah-toe..." Then another two-decade argument will ensue, and the end result will be a shrug...because, after two decades, the argument will be incredibly moot...
Tribunal might just as well rubber-stamp the intelligence agencies' programs.
It doesn't matter. He's tied to the defendant, and their defense depends upon his cooperation.
They sue you; then they involve your wife, son, daughter, employer, church...anyone they can find a tenuous theory to tie to your case and increase the leverage on you to surrender.
So ask yourself, since they weren't suing him, why were they tearing his house apart? Right, looking for leverage on him, so he would surrender and quit his new job. (Or get fired.) Which would be what they really wanted, wouldn't it?
This lawsuit was BS from the start. He quit, went to work for a competitor...and he must be punished. That's what the lawsuit was about. Think they'll give up now that they have a pound of his flesh? Somehow I doubt it.
"...but his personal web browsing habits still made it into the public record..."
Of course they did. Lawsuits today aren't about the legal issues at hand. They're about which party can make it so expensive for the other party, that will force the latter party has to surrender.
That can be either a matter of who has deeper pockets, or who has the most embarrassing facts to hide. And, if the latter, who cares if those facts are relevant to the legal issues at hand? Usually, NOT the judge.
If Mr. Moyse wanted those facts kept private, he should have surrendered to Catalyst demands.
That's exactly wrong, but a win by any means is a win.
@Rapnel Are we actually insinuating here that we "trust" government to, I don't know, never behave in a solely self-preserving and protectionist manner?
IANA is now a private company, which means the last thing it wants to do is piss any country off. So now civil rights are set by every government each according to its whimsical decisions to fine or ban IANA (reduce income) or to pay extra for a few "extras" (increase income). In short IANA just became a money-grubbing slave to every government's civil rights whims.
Some people claim that is much better than IANA being dominated by one government...even the government that dominated it. I say wait 5 years or 10 and let's see what tune you're singing then. And I'll even go so far as to say my bet is that it won't be a happy tune.
@Mike Masnick "But, at a larger scale, what this does is preserve the way internet governance currently works, and makes sure that governments are not the one running the show."
Gee, I wonder how China ever convinced independent, for profit, companies to assist in oppression? You don't suppose the same trick would work with IANA, now?
On the post: Sony Wants To Patent A System For Scoring Journalists' 'Veracity'
Who watches the "truthers"?
Who decides when a journalist is telling the truth? A "Birther"? Exxon-Mobile? David Duke? Hillary Clinton? The 10,000 "grass root" pseudonyms purchased by one of the above?
The top two boxes should be replaced by one, labelled "Highest Bidder".
On the post: IMDb Sues The State Of California Over New 'Ageism' Law
Re:
What utter idiocy. IMDB could not "un-facilitate" ageism by falsifying ages, any more than not publishing the ages would "un-facilitate" ageism.
If they can't "un-facilitate" then they are not facilitating. Simple as that.
I really wish some people would stop wanting to convict everyone who can possibly be construed as involved...that is, everyone except the person who actually "aimed and pulled the trigger."
On the post: IMDb Sues The State Of California Over New 'Ageism' Law
Re:
On the post: Long Time Mass Surveillance Defenders Freak Out Now That Trump Will Have Control
Re: Re: "This isn't a post to mock Ben...as he mocked us."
On the post: Data-Driven Policing Still Problematic; Now Being Used By Government Agencies For Revenue Generation
Extortion business model
The government just wants its shot at some of the same quick income.
On the post: Unsealed Warrant Shows FBI Malware Affected Innocent Tor Users While Agency Ran More Than 20 Child Porn Sites
Re:
Producers have money; producers fight back.
Much easier to make showy convictions of "consumers." The public defender won't even make you prove it was child porn, and will most likely help arm-twist the "consumer" into a plea.
On the post: Unsealed Warrant Shows FBI Malware Affected Innocent Tor Users While Agency Ran More Than 20 Child Porn Sites
Innocent TOR user? No such thing
Expect a correction from the FBI any time now: there is no such thing as an "innocent" TOR user. The FBI sees TOR users hiding things...and people with things to hide are terrorists.
On the post: If The FBI Can't Stop All These Leaks About An Investigation, Why Would it Be Able To Keep Encryption Backdoor Secret?
Re: Lack of consequences lead to escalation of criminal action.
They already leak or outright publish anything they find "expiditious, profitable, or ass-covering." Been doing that for years. As well as clamming up when publicity would not be "expiditious, profitable, or ass-covering."
They're completely self-serving in that respect.
So now ask yourself: what did they expect to gain with their back-handed endorsement of Trump? Because I guarantee: they expected to gain something.
On the post: If The FBI Can't Stop All These Leaks About An Investigation, Why Would it Be Able To Keep Encryption Backdoor Secret?
Endorsements must be public
Oh they can keep a backdoor secret, at least for a while, because they want to keep that secret.
They couldn't "keep" this investigation secret because it was their back-handed endorsement of Trump. Endorsements must be public.
Well, how do you publicize a secret you're supposed to be keeping? You leak like a sieve, naturally.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Government Doesn't Have To Disclose Contents Of Its Secret Terrorist Organization List
Tier III is big
Some might object I left the word "terrorist" out of that statement but I didn't. I figure that, on the theory everyone is a terrorist, Tier III is all the organizations they identified but don't have proof of terrorism activity yet. It's the suspect list...and that list includes everyone.
Darn straight they don't want to list it: 7+ billion names takes a lot of paper.
On the post: FBI Facial Recognition Expert Helps Denver PD Arrest Wrong Man Twice For The Same Crime
Re:
But what probably mattered more was they thought Steven Talley "could be convicted." That is far too often the only criteria for prosecution these days, while in re guilt or innocence, the prosecutor says, "Meh."
On the post: FBI Facial Recognition Expert Helps Denver PD Arrest Wrong Man Twice For The Same Crime
Re: The part I have trouble believing
They were hoping for blazing guns and a body to prop up outside the sheriff's office. Dead men file no defense briefs.
On the post: FBI Facial Recognition Expert Helps Denver PD Arrest Wrong Man Twice For The Same Crime
Top 5 excuses for prosecuting Steven Talley
On the post: UK Tribunal Says Spy Agencies Illegally Collected Communications Data In Bulk For More Than A Decade
Begging to differ
Tribunal might just as well rubber-stamp the intelligence agencies' programs.
On the post: Court Says Deleting Browser History To 'Avoid Embarrassment' Isn't Destruction Of Evidence
Re: Re: Embarking facts are great leverage
They sue you; then they involve your wife, son, daughter, employer, church...anyone they can find a tenuous theory to tie to your case and increase the leverage on you to surrender.
So ask yourself, since they weren't suing him, why were they tearing his house apart? Right, looking for leverage on him, so he would surrender and quit his new job. (Or get fired.) Which would be what they really wanted, wouldn't it?
This lawsuit was BS from the start. He quit, went to work for a competitor...and he must be punished. That's what the lawsuit was about. Think they'll give up now that they have a pound of his flesh? Somehow I doubt it.
On the post: Court Says Deleting Browser History To 'Avoid Embarrassment' Isn't Destruction Of Evidence
Embarking facts are great leverage
Of course they did. Lawsuits today aren't about the legal issues at hand. They're about which party can make it so expensive for the other party, that will force the latter party has to surrender.
That can be either a matter of who has deeper pockets, or who has the most embarrassing facts to hide. And, if the latter, who cares if those facts are relevant to the legal issues at hand? Usually, NOT the judge.
If Mr. Moyse wanted those facts kept private, he should have surrendered to Catalyst demands.
That's exactly wrong, but a win by any means is a win.
On the post: Argentina Not Only Wants To Bring In E-Voting, It Will Make It Illegal To Check The System For Electoral Fraud
Trust by fiat
On the post: Judge Says No Way To Attorneys General Looking To Block IANA Transition
Re:
IANA is now a private company, which means the last thing it wants to do is piss any country off. So now civil rights are set by every government each according to its whimsical decisions to fine or ban IANA (reduce income) or to pay extra for a few "extras" (increase income). In short IANA just became a money-grubbing slave to every government's civil rights whims.
Some people claim that is much better than IANA being dominated by one government...even the government that dominated it. I say wait 5 years or 10 and let's see what tune you're singing then. And I'll even go so far as to say my bet is that it won't be a happy tune.
On the post: Judge Says No Way To Attorneys General Looking To Block IANA Transition
Governments can't influence IANA now, ROFL
Gee, I wonder how China ever convinced independent, for profit, companies to assist in oppression? You don't suppose the same trick would work with IANA, now?
On the post: The FCC Wants To Know Why Journalists Had To Pay $200 For WiFi At Presidential Debate
Re: Re: Welcome to unlicensed spectrum!
"It's technically impossible without charging $$$$!"
Next >>