Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Oct 2019 @ 9:27am
Reap what you sow
As most of us know there is a difference between doing things right, and doing the right thing. This is a prime example that Ajit Pai can't get either right, independently or together.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2019 @ 8:02am
Complexities
While we shouldn't forget the military/industrial/espionage complex, we should also recognize the political/corporate/self indulgence complex.
"... but for that to be legit, he would have to show commercial harm to President Trump, which would be... quite something to attempt."
It could be argued that Trump is in fact using his office as a commercial vehicle. It took some fairly damning commentary to get him to remove the G7 summit from his luxury golf club in Miami, and I am not sure this is the only instance of his feathering his own nest from a position of elected power.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Oct 2019 @ 6:56am
Hold on to your hats
At this point the question isn't how much harm the Trump administration (and his minions) will do, but how long will it take (or even if it is possible to) to correct the atrocities. On one hand the bought and paid for Congress will be reticent to overcome corporate entrenchment, and on the other...well I can't think of anything to say about the other because I am not sure it exists.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 5:36pm
Re: Re: Hey, look over there!
Probably more pessimistic than defeatist, but frankly our governments have not given us much in the way of hope with respect to liberty and freedom for the past couple of decades. Those were the marching orders given in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (aka the manual by which our governments should be run), weren't they?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 4:32pm
Re:
I am fairly certain that this 'error' took much more than age or obsolescence. In fact, I am having a hard time figuring a way it wasn't deliberate, unless this was one of those answering machines that had two tapes, with the same size cassette, and for some obtuse reason the 'error maker' took both out at the same time and switched them.
As feeble as that explanation might be, it doesn't answer the question about how someone decided to give out a patients phone number to other patients calling for advice. From my reading of the article, it wasn't on the message, though that might be a misinterpretation.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 2:08pm
Hey, look over there!
"California this week enacted a landmark law that blocks police from using body cameras for spying on the public."
"The ban blocks the use of facial recognition tech by state law enforcement until the end of 2022."
This law sounds fairly superficial to me, as it only stops body cams, not all the other cameras, and then only for about 3 years. What happens then?
If the legislature was serious about doing something, then the ban should have been on facial recognition, and not limited to body cams, and there should not have been an end date. But they weren't serious, were they?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 11:00am
Re: Re: Re:
Taking that thought a step further, the collection activity being paid for won't do anything positive for the bottom line, thereby having a negative impact on the CEO's potential bonus.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 9:59am
What problem are they actually trying to solve?
I mean, the levels of homegrown terrorism aren't all that high, are they? That is if we leave out the stings run by the FBI where they 'create' terrorism by coercing marginal people to do things they wouldn't do without the coercion, as well as treating every whistle blower as a terrorist.
So that leaves what? Speech they don't like? What forms do those acts of speech take? Are they complaining about the authoritarianism of our government? Are they complaining about graft in our election/lobbying system? Are they expounding on the 'wrong' religion? This list could get very, very long.
For the 'we needs to do something' crowd, there doesn't actually seem to be anything needed in this area, absent the power thingy where they don't believe their power is absolute enough.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 18 Oct 2019 @ 9:32am
Re:
"...the same money grabbing politicians will be re-elected and absolutely nothing will be done..."
Are there any politicians who are not money grabbing? Until we fix the soft money mess and the ability of lobbyists to donate and/or direct donations the continuum of corrupt politicians will continue. Even then we will have corrupt politicians, there will just be fewer of them.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Oct 2019 @ 6:52am
Re:
That may depend upon shareholders, who may or may not have backbones. China is a huge market. I suspect that ways will be found to deal with China while limiting the amount of digital information exposed to them, which won't be easy for digital products.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Oct 2019 @ 6:40am
Which Federal Agency will be co-opted next?
"That's why, just as we're seeing on the privacy front, the big industry push moving forward will be to express phony support for a federal net neutrality law their lawyers will write. A law they pretend is a "solution" to the problem but contains so many loopholes as to be effectively worthless. Its only real purpose? To pre-empt tougher federal or state guidelines."
They can write as many laws as they like. Since they coerced the FCC to give up its authority to oversee the Telecom/Broadband industry, whom are they going to get to enforce it? As pointed out in the article, and many times before, the FTC doesn't have the authority or resources to do much of anything.
Of course it would be quite amusing to watch the FCC try to claw back its authority. How much crow can Ajit Pai eat?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 7:09am
Nerds might impact, but don't create societies
"Myth: Technologists just need to “nerd harder.”
Reality: Filtering and artificial intelligence play important roles in content moderation. However, technology alone cannot magically solve the problem. “Edgy” and contextless content vexes the machines, too."
The issue isn't technical, the issue is social, and to that end, while there might be 'one' society, it is made up from many sub-societies. Those sub-societies might have similarities, but they are in fact often different. Society is also impacted by the form of governing happening around those sub-societies, and within each government there are likely several to many sub-sub-societies.
In authoritarian regimes there are probably supporters (those who endeavor to become authoritarian themselves) and opposers (those who wish a more democratic form of oppression).
In democratic regimes there are those who wish for, and work to impose a more authoritarian government position while those who actually enjoy liberty and freedom work to impede more rigid government control. Or are just complacent.
If the world wants to prevent bad, then they have to come to agreement about what bad is, and letting governments (or religions or for that matter any factions) decide for the populace what is or isn't actually bad hasn't gotten better with time, as theoretically 'good' societies seem to have tendencies to turn bad, and theoretically 'bad' societies seem to have tendencies to get worse. And just to keep things confused, sometimes the populace gets out of their complacent mode and vehemently opposes whatever regime is designing their current oppression's.
So whatever answers anyone comes up with, there will be opposers to those answers and the subjective determination about whether the answer, or the content, is good or bad is merely a point of view. If people are concerned about influencing children with bad content, how about teaching 'parenting' without imposing ideologies? If I want my kids to play outside, unattended by adults (as I did as a child) then it is my business, not anyone else's. Keeping children from viewing shocking videos on the Internet is about me, as a parent and how I control my children's Internet usage, as well as what I tell them when they stumble across something I consider bad, and not about societies ability to censor. There is no actual way to keep them from seeing things I don't want them to entirely (on the Internet or in the real world), but there are ways for me to help them understand and cope with those things when they run across them.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Oct 2019 @ 6:35am
Re:
"...during a class discussion, another student asked the girl, if she could kill five people in the class, who would they be?"
I was thinking the same thing. What the hell was the teacher thinking when they allowed that question to be asked? What was done to discipline the student asking that question, I mean what the hell was that discussion about that made that question pertinent? What was done to the teacher who allowed that question to be answered?
Then, there is the potential for the epitome of the Reasonably Scared Cop Rule, where the cop appears to have thought that the 'finger gun' might be used on themselves. 'I gots to get home for dinner tonight and no 'finger gun' wielding 12 year old is gonna prevent that!'
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 6:20pm
Re: Re: Re:
Qualified immunity seems to apply only when there is no clearly established law or case making the particular circumstances illegal. Two things bother me about this, the first is what the hell does particular circumstances have to do with breaking the law? The second is that when qualified immunity is applied, the circumstances involved don't create clearly defined laws.
Well, let's make that three things. The whole concept of qualified immunity along with law officers not needing to know the laws they enforce are big problems. They tell us that ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, that is, unless your a law officer.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Oct 2019 @ 7:13am
Re:
It's probably more like they don't want the difference between the reality about 5G abilities and coverage to interfere with their fantasy about 5G abilities and coverage that has been revealed in their marketing.
The reason that information is sensitive is that one drives share prices up, the other down. Gotta protect those bonuses that are based on the genius of pertinent executives.
On the post: CBP And Local Law Enforcement Are Mixing And Matching Surveillance Gear To Skirt Already-Minimal Constitutional Protections
What's a Constitution?
Is this how they define, or implement (or both) parallel construction?
On the post: Ajit Pai Whines About The Numerous State-Level Net Neutrality Laws He Just Helped Create
Reap what you sow
As most of us know there is a difference between doing things right, and doing the right thing. This is a prime example that Ajit Pai can't get either right, independently or together.
On the post: Bringing Free Speech Back: Trump Promises To Sue CNN Over Its Biased Coverage Based On Dumbest Legal Theory Ever
Complexities
While we shouldn't forget the military/industrial/espionage complex, we should also recognize the political/corporate/self indulgence complex.
It could be argued that Trump is in fact using his office as a commercial vehicle. It took some fairly damning commentary to get him to remove the G7 summit from his luxury golf club in Miami, and I am not sure this is the only instance of his feathering his own nest from a position of elected power.
On the post: FCC Approved T-Mobile Sprint Merger Without Even Seeing The Full Details
Hold on to your hats
At this point the question isn't how much harm the Trump administration (and his minions) will do, but how long will it take (or even if it is possible to) to correct the atrocities. On one hand the bought and paid for Congress will be reticent to overcome corporate entrenchment, and on the other...well I can't think of anything to say about the other because I am not sure it exists.
On the post: California Governor Signs Bill Banning Facial Recognition Tech Use By State's Law Enforcement Agencies
Re: Re: Hey, look over there!
Probably more pessimistic than defeatist, but frankly our governments have not given us much in the way of hope with respect to liberty and freedom for the past couple of decades. Those were the marching orders given in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (aka the manual by which our governments should be run), weren't they?
On the post: UK Hospital Somehow Manages To Turn A Patient's Private Message Into Its Voicemail Greeting
Re:
I am fairly certain that this 'error' took much more than age or obsolescence. In fact, I am having a hard time figuring a way it wasn't deliberate, unless this was one of those answering machines that had two tapes, with the same size cassette, and for some obtuse reason the 'error maker' took both out at the same time and switched them.
As feeble as that explanation might be, it doesn't answer the question about how someone decided to give out a patients phone number to other patients calling for advice. From my reading of the article, it wasn't on the message, though that might be a misinterpretation.
On the post: California Governor Signs Bill Banning Facial Recognition Tech Use By State's Law Enforcement Agencies
Hey, look over there!
This law sounds fairly superficial to me, as it only stops body cams, not all the other cameras, and then only for about 3 years. What happens then?
If the legislature was serious about doing something, then the ban should have been on facial recognition, and not limited to body cams, and there should not have been an end date. But they weren't serious, were they?
On the post: Weaponizing The GDPR: Gamers Want To Use It To Flood Blizzard With Requests As Protest Over China Appeasement
Re: Re: Re:
Taking that thought a step further, the collection activity being paid for won't do anything positive for the bottom line, thereby having a negative impact on the CEO's potential bonus.
On the post: Congressional Reps Targeting Homegrown Terrorism Are Pushing A Bill That Would Allow Congress To Subpoena Citizens' Communications
What problem are they actually trying to solve?
I mean, the levels of homegrown terrorism aren't all that high, are they? That is if we leave out the stings run by the FBI where they 'create' terrorism by coercing marginal people to do things they wouldn't do without the coercion, as well as treating every whistle blower as a terrorist.
So that leaves what? Speech they don't like? What forms do those acts of speech take? Are they complaining about the authoritarianism of our government? Are they complaining about graft in our election/lobbying system? Are they expounding on the 'wrong' religion? This list could get very, very long.
For the 'we needs to do something' crowd, there doesn't actually seem to be anything needed in this area, absent the power thingy where they don't believe their power is absolute enough.
On the post: AT&T Jacks Up Broadband Rates With Misleading 'Property Tax' Fee
Re:
Are there any politicians who are not money grabbing? Until we fix the soft money mess and the ability of lobbyists to donate and/or direct donations the continuum of corrupt politicians will continue. Even then we will have corrupt politicians, there will just be fewer of them.
On the post: The Ultimate Aim Of China's 2016 Cybersecurity Law Is Now Clear: Nothing Digital Can Be Secret From The Authorities
Re:
That may depend upon shareholders, who may or may not have backbones. China is a huge market. I suspect that ways will be found to deal with China while limiting the amount of digital information exposed to them, which won't be easy for digital products.
On the post: States Rush To Protect Net Neutrality On Heels Of Court Ruling
Which Federal Agency will be co-opted next?
They can write as many laws as they like. Since they coerced the FCC to give up its authority to oversee the Telecom/Broadband industry, whom are they going to get to enforce it? As pointed out in the article, and many times before, the FTC doesn't have the authority or resources to do much of anything.
Of course it would be quite amusing to watch the FCC try to claw back its authority. How much crow can Ajit Pai eat?
On the post: Portland Police Review Board Says It's OK For Officers To Lie To Get Someone To Stop Filming Them
Re: I Wonder
Maybe. Cops lie about a lot of things, and even arrest people based upon the lie.
On the post: Cops Arrest 12-Year-Old For Pointing 'Finger Guns' At Classmates
Re: Re: Re:
Which child? The 12 year old, or the supposed 'adults' that reacted so strangely?
On the post: Top Myths About Content Moderation
Nerds might impact, but don't create societies
The issue isn't technical, the issue is social, and to that end, while there might be 'one' society, it is made up from many sub-societies. Those sub-societies might have similarities, but they are in fact often different. Society is also impacted by the form of governing happening around those sub-societies, and within each government there are likely several to many sub-sub-societies.
In authoritarian regimes there are probably supporters (those who endeavor to become authoritarian themselves) and opposers (those who wish a more democratic form of oppression).
In democratic regimes there are those who wish for, and work to impose a more authoritarian government position while those who actually enjoy liberty and freedom work to impede more rigid government control. Or are just complacent.
If the world wants to prevent bad, then they have to come to agreement about what bad is, and letting governments (or religions or for that matter any factions) decide for the populace what is or isn't actually bad hasn't gotten better with time, as theoretically 'good' societies seem to have tendencies to turn bad, and theoretically 'bad' societies seem to have tendencies to get worse. And just to keep things confused, sometimes the populace gets out of their complacent mode and vehemently opposes whatever regime is designing their current oppression's.
So whatever answers anyone comes up with, there will be opposers to those answers and the subjective determination about whether the answer, or the content, is good or bad is merely a point of view. If people are concerned about influencing children with bad content, how about teaching 'parenting' without imposing ideologies? If I want my kids to play outside, unattended by adults (as I did as a child) then it is my business, not anyone else's. Keeping children from viewing shocking videos on the Internet is about me, as a parent and how I control my children's Internet usage, as well as what I tell them when they stumble across something I consider bad, and not about societies ability to censor. There is no actual way to keep them from seeing things I don't want them to entirely (on the Internet or in the real world), but there are ways for me to help them understand and cope with those things when they run across them.
On the post: Cops Arrest 12-Year-Old For Pointing 'Finger Guns' At Classmates
Re:
I was thinking the same thing. What the hell was the teacher thinking when they allowed that question to be asked? What was done to discipline the student asking that question, I mean what the hell was that discussion about that made that question pertinent? What was done to the teacher who allowed that question to be answered?
Then, there is the potential for the epitome of the Reasonably Scared Cop Rule, where the cop appears to have thought that the 'finger gun' might be used on themselves. 'I gots to get home for dinner tonight and no 'finger gun' wielding 12 year old is gonna prevent that!'
On the post: Cop Peforming A Welfare Check Kills Woman By Shooting Her Through Her Own Backyard Window
Re: Re: Re:
Qualified immunity seems to apply only when there is no clearly established law or case making the particular circumstances illegal. Two things bother me about this, the first is what the hell does particular circumstances have to do with breaking the law? The second is that when qualified immunity is applied, the circumstances involved don't create clearly defined laws.
Well, let's make that three things. The whole concept of qualified immunity along with law officers not needing to know the laws they enforce are big problems. They tell us that ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, that is, unless your a law officer.
On the post: Wireless Industry Is Trying To Hide Where 5G Is Actually Available
Re:
It's probably more like they don't want the difference between the reality about 5G abilities and coverage to interfere with their fantasy about 5G abilities and coverage that has been revealed in their marketing.
The reason that information is sensitive is that one drives share prices up, the other down. Gotta protect those bonuses that are based on the genius of pertinent executives.
On the post: The Ellen Show Issues Copyright Takedown On Transformative Video Commenting On Her Friendship With President Bush
Re: Re: Re:
That's easy. Corrupt Congresscritters reacting to payments from big copyright holders who never created anything.
On the post: The Ellen Show Issues Copyright Takedown On Transformative Video Commenting On Her Friendship With President Bush
Re: Re: Re: Re:
King George? The one who prosecuted war on the colonies over their objection to taxation without representation?
Next >>