People need this translated to the physical world.
Would you support a local law where you had to submit a house key to be kept in the police station? And what if there were a history of the keepers of the keys using them for personal gain, or just outright losing them?
Nobody in their right mind would support such a law, but that's almost exactly what the DOJ is proposing now.
Comcast runs its own DNS server. If you (like the majority of Americans) use Comcast as your ISP, you probably run your internet traffic through those lookup servers. Of course you have the option to change that for your own setup, but the vast majority of people don't even know that, let alone how to do it.
So if Comcast were to get angry with Techdirt's coverage and block the domain from their DNS servers, a huge portion of the population would not be able to access the site. Due to the dominant market position, this would be seen unfavorably by most people, and perhaps the law. One could also (even somewhat convincingly) argue that Comcast has its own 1st Amendment right to block and display whatever it wants, but that sounds somewhat less credible from Net Neutrality supporters.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close. Google and Apple have both blocked something they disagree with, and as the dominant market access points, they bear a bit more burden to make sure they have a damned good reason for doing so.
Standards being inconsistently applied is a pretty good definition of arbitrary discrimination. If this were done at the website level rather than the app level, I feel like your position would be different, here.
When they say "National Security," they're really saying "Government Security." Easily confused, but there's an important difference.
Take the Snowden releases for example: Good for the security of the freedoms and ideals of the nation, but bad for the jobs and opacity of the bureaucrats in the government.
When CBP searches the computers (which can also make phone calls, in this case) of journalists, especially, they're out to protect the government, not the Constitution that government claims to protect.
The police can collect records because there is no expectation of privacy, but the public can't see those records, because people have an expectation of privacy.
It kind of funny how the stereotype of the left is one of absolute trust in government, but also more distrustful of the very representatives of that power, while the right is more distrustful of government, unless they are carrying a gun (police and military).
It seems to me that people have forgotten the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism. Patriotism is supporting what a country (supposedly) stands for, whereas Nationalism is supporting what a country actually does, whether that is in agreement with its ideals or not.
i.e. "Dissent is patriotic" vs "Support the President no matter what."
"Law and Order" is at a similar crossroads right now. The Order part can be easy, but you have to erode the foundations of the Law to do it that way. The harder, long-term way to support Order (peace and stability) is to increase respect for the Law. The President is taking shortcuts here, at the expense of the citizenry.
If one wanted to actually restore Law and Order (in a literal sense) they must first restore Order to the Law.
Hmmm... $6/month to not see ads in a dozen or so shows from one network, or $10/month to not see ads in hundreds and hundreds of shows across dozens of networks on Netflix.
For claiming Netflix to be a mortal enemy, the old media is doing more to make it look like a massive bargain than any amount of advertising Netflix could ever do.
So officers don't know they can't just make stuff up in court, but it's all academic anyway, since SCOTUS already said that officers only need to *believe* they are enforcing a law to do a full investigation.
Basically, Law Enforcement Officers don't have any responsibility to know what the hell they're doing. In the rare case they do get caught, they either get a short-term paid vacation or the minor inconvenience of having to get a new job in the next town over.
You best start believing in police states, Techdirt reader... you're in one!
No, but the fact that all this information was gathered from other public databases makes a pretty strong argument for this being essentially public data.
Embarrassing, sure. Stupid, absolutely. But there will be a number of people and news outlets calling for legal or financial penalties (including lawsuits, probably) that just aren't appropriate.
People have come, rightly or wrongly, to fear law enforcement.
By sanctioning their shooting first and asking questions "later" (actually, never), this and similar rulings accomplish exactly three things:
Cops learn the wrong lesson: that they can get away with murder.
Which makes people more afraid.
Which makes deadly encounters (for cops and citizens) more likely in the future.
So in exchange for escaping liability today, the cops and courts have made the world a more dangerous place tomorrow.
Speaking as somebody with multiple friends and family members in law enforcement, "Blue Lives Matter" rulings like this make a cop's job MORE DANGEROUS. But that's OK in the eyes of this defendant. He got away with it.
The FBI, and the intelligence community at large, is generating so many *internal* documents about so many subjects that they can't even count them, let alone analyze/categorize them, let alone make any intelligent responses.
But this same intelligence community thinks they're the best organization(s) to gather, analyze and respond to all the data generated by the public, which is many orders of magnitude more vast and complex.
I hate the guy as much as anybody else, but linking this to Trump is just stupid. Journalists have been arrested in the vicinity of protests for all time; this is not unprecedented.
Ferguson and Dakota Access during Obama's tenure. A Tucson Citizen photographer and probably plenty more at anti-war protests during Bush's. That took all of one google search. You're better than this, Timothy.
On the post: Deputy AG Pitches New Form Of Backdoor: 'Responsible Encryption'
Would you support a local law where you had to submit a house key to be kept in the police station? And what if there were a history of the keepers of the keys using them for personal gain, or just outright losing them?
Nobody in their right mind would support such a law, but that's almost exactly what the DOJ is proposing now.
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Patent Trolls' Favorite Judge He Can't Just Ignore The Supreme Court To Keep Patent Cases In Texas
Turns out it's a prerequisite to becoming an appellate judge.
On the post: Alt-Right Twitter App Developers Sue Google After Gab.Ai App Is Kicked Out Of The Play Store
I can sort of see the logic
So if Comcast were to get angry with Techdirt's coverage and block the domain from their DNS servers, a huge portion of the population would not be able to access the site. Due to the dominant market position, this would be seen unfavorably by most people, and perhaps the law. One could also (even somewhat convincingly) argue that Comcast has its own 1st Amendment right to block and display whatever it wants, but that sounds somewhat less credible from Net Neutrality supporters.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close. Google and Apple have both blocked something they disagree with, and as the dominant market access points, they bear a bit more burden to make sure they have a damned good reason for doing so.
Standards being inconsistently applied is a pretty good definition of arbitrary discrimination. If this were done at the website level rather than the app level, I feel like your position would be different, here.
On the post: EFF, ACLU Sue Government Over Warrantless Electronic Searches At The Border
Re: National Security
Take the Snowden releases for example: Good for the security of the freedoms and ideals of the nation, but bad for the jobs and opacity of the bureaucrats in the government.
When CBP searches the computers (which can also make phone calls, in this case) of journalists, especially, they're out to protect the government, not the Constitution that government claims to protect.
On the post: California's Top Court Says Cops Have To Hand Over Automatic Plate Reader Records
Re: Public road, no "right to privacy"
That's 1984, er, 2017 for ya.
On the post: NPR Gives Up On News Comments; After All, Who Cares What Your Customers Have To Say?
On the post: Trump Rolls Back Ban On Transfer Of Military Equipment To Law Enforcement Agencies
Re:
On the post: Trump Rolls Back Ban On Transfer Of Military Equipment To Law Enforcement Agencies
It seems to me that people have forgotten the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism. Patriotism is supporting what a country (supposedly) stands for, whereas Nationalism is supporting what a country actually does, whether that is in agreement with its ideals or not.
i.e. "Dissent is patriotic" vs "Support the President no matter what."
"Law and Order" is at a similar crossroads right now. The Order part can be easy, but you have to erode the foundations of the Law to do it that way. The harder, long-term way to support Order (peace and stability) is to increase respect for the Law. The President is taking shortcuts here, at the expense of the citizenry.
If one wanted to actually restore Law and Order (in a literal sense) they must first restore Order to the Law.
On the post: FBI Terrorism Sting Nets Paranoid Schizophrenic Previously Found Incompetent By A State Court
Just to be clear:
They took an actual Paranoid Schizophrenic and actually concocted a government conspiracy to have him arrested.
Let that sink in a while, then tell me who the crazy party in this debacle really is.
On the post: Fox News Host Files SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Who Exposed His Sexting
Pick one.
On the post: Cable's New Brilliant Idea: Charging You More Money To Skip Ads
For claiming Netflix to be a mortal enemy, the old media is doing more to make it look like a massive bargain than any amount of advertising Netflix could ever do.
On the post: Olive Garden Asks Olive Garden Reviewer Not To Refer To Olive Garden Due To Trademarks
Mybe not by a literal robot, but at least a figurative one.
On the post: FCC Won't Release Data To Support Its Claim A DDOS Attack, Not John Oliver, Brought Down The Agency's Website
It was a DDoS attack
Denial of Service = The website crashed.
It wasn't a DDoS by a botnet, it was from concerned citizens.
On the post: Sheriff Defends Deputies' Lies In Court By Saying Officers Didn't Know They Were Supposed To Tell The Truth
Basically, Law Enforcement Officers don't have any responsibility to know what the hell they're doing. In the rare case they do get caught, they either get a short-term paid vacation or the minor inconvenience of having to get a new job in the next town over.
You best start believing in police states, Techdirt reader... you're in one!
On the post: GOP Data Firm Left The Personal Data Of 198 Million American Voters On Openly-Accessible Amazon Server
Re: Re:
Embarrassing, sure. Stupid, absolutely. But there will be a number of people and news outlets calling for legal or financial penalties (including lawsuits, probably) that just aren't appropriate.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Right To Bear Arms Isn't A Right If Cops Are Banging On Your Door In The Middle Of The Night
Disgusting
People have come, rightly or wrongly, to fear law enforcement.
By sanctioning their shooting first and asking questions "later" (actually, never), this and similar rulings accomplish exactly three things:
So in exchange for escaping liability today, the cops and courts have made the world a more dangerous place tomorrow.
Speaking as somebody with multiple friends and family members in law enforcement, "Blue Lives Matter" rulings like this make a cop's job MORE DANGEROUS. But that's OK in the eyes of this defendant. He got away with it.
On the post: Why Did The FBI Say It Couldn't Release Documents To 'FOIA Terrorist' Jason Leopold That It Released To Me Months Earlier?
There's a deep irony here
But this same intelligence community thinks they're the best organization(s) to gather, analyze and respond to all the data generated by the public, which is many orders of magnitude more vast and complex.
On the post: Six Journalists Arrested, Charged While Covering Trump Inauguration Protests
Ferguson and Dakota Access during Obama's tenure. A Tucson Citizen photographer and probably plenty more at anti-war protests during Bush's. That took all of one google search. You're better than this, Timothy.
On the post: Donald Trump Demonstrating How Much Of Our Political System Is Based On Tradition & Custom, Not Rules
On the post: Media Organizations (Correctly) Worry That Rolling Stone Verdict Will Make Saying Sorry Actionable
Next >>