Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Oct 2019 @ 4:09pm
Get and publish them all
Some enterprising Long Beach citizens rights group should crowdfund in order to pay a large law office to request all the records, and then turn them over to several newspapers that publish in the area and publish them all. That may or may not be enough cover to overcome potential police retribution, but it might be.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Oct 2019 @ 7:09am
Monopolists redefining monopolies to exclude themselves
Comcast and their cheerleaders seem to have some kind of dual standard relating to the definition of monopoly. From Merriam Webster:
monopoly noun
mo·nop·o·ly | \ mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē How to pronounce monopoly (audio) \
plural monopolies
Definition of monopoly
1: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2: exclusive possession or control
no country has a monopoly on morality or truth
— Helen M. Lynd
3: a commodity controlled by one party
had a monopoly on flint from their quarries
— Barbara A. Leitch
4: one that has a monopoly
The government passed laws intended to break up monopolies.
From those we can deduce that Comcast is saying that Google has exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action of not just search engines, but online advertising. From Wikipedia we have a listing of search engines which contains more than one search engine. Hmm.
Then, with respect to online advertising, their claim would be that no web page that isn't controlled by Google has any advertising on it, and we know that that ain't so. Why doesn't Comcast?
The answer is that Comcast is trying to set up a hand jive type defense of its own position. Hey, look over there, see what they're doing? Don't look over here, behind these curtains, what's important is over there. Ain't we sweet?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad analogies should stay in the kitchen
To be fair, not all chef's are created equal. Some have better skills, some pay more attention to execution, and still others have both of those plus a flair for creativity. Still others are hampered by owners who fail to get them the best ingredients or equipment. Chef's tend to produce to the best for their ability, which is not the same as another's ability. The same is probably true when it comes to programmers.
As Robert L. Glass mentioned in his Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering programmers make mistakes, and often the same mistakes, and those mistakes are often grouped together. tp seems to be one of those. Making mistakes, the same mistake, and seemingly grouped together.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad analogies should stay in the kitchen
More than one menu lists menu items that come with sauce hollandaise. Many of those menus list the same item name. Some or none of them copied another. I can cite 50 different ways to make sauce hollandaise. They all have the same basic recipe. The difference is in the method of preparation. Some can be well made, and others not, and neither have anything to do with the method of preparation. Which one is the lie?
So much wrong, and apparently for all the wrong reasons
If they thought the child was sick I could see sending him to the school nurse, who might do several things prior to removing his pants (and all of them in private) such as taking his temperature, asking how he feels, asking what he has eaten for the past several meals. Then, if indicated, ask him to drop trousers, but again, for what? There are oral thermometers, so why would one need to use rectal thermometers. I cannot imagine what test a school nurse could perform that makes any sense. A doctor, maybe, with more information, but not a nurse.
In addition I am absolutely flabbergasted when considering what they thought they were going to achieve with this action. Were they going to take a sample from his rectum and compare it to what was on the floor in the bathroom? Were they going to get the DNA tested? To what end? Was a law broken? Were they trying to set up a case to charge the parents for cleaning the bathroom? Were they upset because he didn't immediately report having made a mess (failing to consider that he might have been embarrassed)? Nothing makes any sense.
Those that need to know, know, those that don't need...
to know will find out?
It makes one consider how many Kazakh officials attend the services of the Rainbow Spa that they are so concerned with the existence of such a service. To allow such a heavy handed Internet related sanction, rather than the legally enabled closing of the emporium seems more like trying to eliminate some kinds of disclosure rather than eliminating some nefarious entity.
Which brings up the question, is that entity actually nefarious in Kazakhstan? Or are the powerful just reluctant to be associated with their dealings with that entity? Some might say, they seemingly are concerned about being rubbed the wrong way.
Though, not knowing the actual business practice of the Rainbow Spa (or the laws in Kazakhstan), I am not sure how being rubbed the wrong way is even possible. Unless it gets out...erm...is exposed...um...I mean intercoursely expounded...arg...ejected...I think I should stop now, though it might appear that some others went to the finish line, and now regret it. Um...I mean regret that it might be known rather than regretting that their blue pill worked.
Real or imagined infringement, which is actually illegal?
There does not appear to be any depth that corporations will not go, even if they don't actually own the IP they are 'defending'. While RICO may not apply in Canada, there sure seems to be a collaboration to harm those that 'might' enable infringement. To those Canadian Telcos, what is actually to their detriment? They don't own any of the IP involved, do they?
I have been using Kodi for many years, but I have never used it to stream any infringing sites. I do use it to view/hear my video/audio collection, but that has nothing to do with infringement.
I suspect that 'The Proud Boys" will take all the rope they need without anyone actually providing it. What is more important is whether that rope is given more exposure than it deserves or if it is burned from one end to the other by more pragmatic heads. Faux news insensitive racist, sexist, morons should not be given a louder voice, though this is overcome only by sensible, respectable (if they exist) talking heads that speak more, rather than less.
While I am not a fan of 'wokeness', I am a fan of tolerance. The overly sensitive seem to think any form of unwokeness is a hanging offence (with or without proof). I am more in favor of the proof routine, along with the innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law.
You assume that there are enough citizens who recognize what the government is doing to them. There are a couple of sides to that. There are those that are over the top, and maliciously so, anti government, then there are many, many more who have many more cares than what the government is doing to them. At some point, those two ends will find a middle, and hopefully find a peaceful way to ameliorate the situation. If not, there is the Jefferson solution, and he is attributed as a major contributor to the Constitution:
Isn't the real question whether Huawei is spying for the Chinese government, or that Cisco is spying for the US government? By eliminating Huawei in the US it would leave Cisco as the only one spying from routers (that is outed spy's) and that's the way the US government wants it. The whole trade thingy is smoke and mirrors. So maybe the real question is who it the third party, open sourced software, firmware, and hardware network level router manufacturer that everyone should turn to?
Now as to Microsoft's position, they don't care who is spying on whom (as they spy on all their customers), they care about the cash flow from a major Chinese producer that might not be able to buy from Microsoft any more. That they care, one way or the other, about the spying would be contrary to investor's interest.
Come on Tim, these stories are supposed to be about working in the future, not sexual fantasies that express abnormal tendencies.
Of course, if you're into that kind of thing...have at it. Oh, and for sure, post them for free and with copious links. One wouldn't want to disappoint the largest fan base.
Re: Re: It is impossible to define impossible when it is possibl
The judge does have the power. She could just order them to give her the information. Now that order might get appealed, and that appeal might go to the Supreme Court, and they could rain some judicial hell down on the judge, but the statement would have been made. If many judges do the same thing, and call out the Supreme Courts error in giving the government such power in violation of the Constitution, then maybe the Supreme Court will reconsider its position.
Re: Re: It is impossible to define impossible when it is possibl
Sorry, while the Supreme Court might be the only judicial avenue available for reexamination, that does not mean that each and every one of us does not have the right, and responsibility to consider the ramifications of totalitarian action by anyone. Nor is it the only recourse. I think submitting to the governments cry of 'state secrets' all the time goes beyond the powers invested in our government.
While I do think that some things should be closely held for some short periods of time, I do not think the government should be able to act without recourse...in anything. In our system it is up to the courts to aid us in that, and here, the court let us down.
It is impossible to define impossible when it is possible
"...it is impossible for Mr. Kareem to obtain the necessary information to prove his claims..."
It is not impossible, but it would take the government overcoming its embarrassment at possessing lists that they intend to extrajudicialy terminate the life of US citizens who have not been convicted of crimes that carry the death penalty. If all it takes is for the government to claim 'state secrets' to kill anyone at all, then what is to stop them from killing anyone they don't like and claim 'state secret' when brought to trial or sued for violation of Constitutional rights.
It's not that I'm surprised that this judge didn't take the time to review the lists as well as the underlying reasoning behind not only the creation of the lists but the reasoning for inclusion of anyone listed, but also that she publicly twisted and turned to justify the governments 'state secret' defense without understanding the necessity of that secrecy. That unexplained 'state secrets' were sufficient to overcome 'standing', where is the hope that anyone else could be safe from government sanctions, up to and including extrajudicial death. I would bet several good Internets that the government could come up with enough weasel words to explain the necessity of the so called 'state secret' without actually revealing the secret. Whether that explanation would pass the laugh test is another story.
I never knew that they allowed judges to play Twister while on the bench.
We either live by and respect the Constitution or we turn into an authoritarian state. Edicts like this one show once again that we are on the move toward authoritarianism, which is contrary to the established basis for our country, and a violation of the Judges oath to uphold the Constitution.
They should add a time limit for accomplishing the reviews. In addition, they should make it clear that any algorithm that has not been thoroughly reviewed is ineligible to be used as evidence of any wrongdoing. They should also make it clear that this law is effective to courts at all levels, so that some state prosecutors cannot claim it doesn't apply to them. To do so might require some language that clarifies that trade secrets cannot overcome the 6th Amendment.
"Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
While congress may not be able to force judges to side with defendants in cases where access to third-party software is at stake, they can make it illegal for them to allow unreviewable evidence to be presented as the Constitution requires that one be able to face their accusers. Even if it is third party trade privileged software that can't testify for itself, but can be analyzed and refuted by defense experts. And while that could be expensive, it is better than a denial of confrontation.
On the post: California Police Department Wants Five Days Notice And The Personal Info Of Requesters Before Turning Over Misconduct Records
Get and publish them all
Some enterprising Long Beach citizens rights group should crowdfund in order to pay a large law office to request all the records, and then turn them over to several newspapers that publish in the area and publish them all. That may or may not be enough cover to overcome potential police retribution, but it might be.
On the post: Devin Nunes Sues Again; He REALLY Doesn't Want You To Read This Article About His Family's Cow Farm In Iowa
Re: Re: Change of venue?
I think Devin Nunes is a victim of his own imagination. A self serving, ego inflated, power controlled, and blind to reality imagination.
On the post: Welcome To Working Futures: 14 Speculative Fiction Stories About The Future Of Work
Re: Why no EPUB?
Calibre will most likely be able to do such a conversion for you.
On the post: Comcast Apparently Feels Qualified To Give Google Lectures On Monopoly Power
Monopolists redefining monopolies to exclude themselves
Comcast and their cheerleaders seem to have some kind of dual standard relating to the definition of monopoly. From Merriam Webster:
From those we can deduce that Comcast is saying that Google has exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action of not just search engines, but online advertising. From Wikipedia we have a listing of search engines which contains more than one search engine. Hmm.
Then, with respect to online advertising, their claim would be that no web page that isn't controlled by Google has any advertising on it, and we know that that ain't so. Why doesn't Comcast?
The answer is that Comcast is trying to set up a hand jive type defense of its own position. Hey, look over there, see what they're doing? Don't look over here, behind these curtains, what's important is over there. Ain't we sweet?
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad analogies should stay in the kitchen
To be fair, not all chef's are created equal. Some have better skills, some pay more attention to execution, and still others have both of those plus a flair for creativity. Still others are hampered by owners who fail to get them the best ingredients or equipment. Chef's tend to produce to the best for their ability, which is not the same as another's ability. The same is probably true when it comes to programmers.
As Robert L. Glass mentioned in his Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering programmers make mistakes, and often the same mistakes, and those mistakes are often grouped together. tp seems to be one of those. Making mistakes, the same mistake, and seemingly grouped together.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad analogies should stay in the kitchen
More than one menu lists menu items that come with sauce hollandaise. Many of those menus list the same item name. Some or none of them copied another. I can cite 50 different ways to make sauce hollandaise. They all have the same basic recipe. The difference is in the method of preparation. Some can be well made, and others not, and neither have anything to do with the method of preparation. Which one is the lie?
Your full of crap.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re: Re:
I should have added that there was one case where a Federal Judge went and learned to program Java himself to help sort out this dilemma.
On the post: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable
Re:
And what is a judge to do when both the many lettered experts speak equally vehemently on opposing sides?
On the post: Lawsuit: School Strip-Searched An 8-Year-Old Because Someone Found Feces On A Bathroom Floor
So much wrong, and apparently for all the wrong reasons
If they thought the child was sick I could see sending him to the school nurse, who might do several things prior to removing his pants (and all of them in private) such as taking his temperature, asking how he feels, asking what he has eaten for the past several meals. Then, if indicated, ask him to drop trousers, but again, for what? There are oral thermometers, so why would one need to use rectal thermometers. I cannot imagine what test a school nurse could perform that makes any sense. A doctor, maybe, with more information, but not a nurse.
In addition I am absolutely flabbergasted when considering what they thought they were going to achieve with this action. Were they going to take a sample from his rectum and compare it to what was on the floor in the bathroom? Were they going to get the DNA tested? To what end? Was a law broken? Were they trying to set up a case to charge the parents for cleaning the bathroom? Were they upset because he didn't immediately report having made a mess (failing to consider that he might have been embarrassed)? Nothing makes any sense.
On the post: Kazakh Government Takes Down 93k Websites To Site-Block A Single Massage Parlour
Those that need to know, know, those that don't need...
to know will find out?
It makes one consider how many Kazakh officials attend the services of the Rainbow Spa that they are so concerned with the existence of such a service. To allow such a heavy handed Internet related sanction, rather than the legally enabled closing of the emporium seems more like trying to eliminate some kinds of disclosure rather than eliminating some nefarious entity.
Which brings up the question, is that entity actually nefarious in Kazakhstan? Or are the powerful just reluctant to be associated with their dealings with that entity? Some might say, they seemingly are concerned about being rubbed the wrong way.
Though, not knowing the actual business practice of the Rainbow Spa (or the laws in Kazakhstan), I am not sure how being rubbed the wrong way is even possible. Unless it gets out...erm...is exposed...um...I mean intercoursely expounded...arg...ejected...I think I should stop now, though it might appear that some others went to the finish line, and now regret it. Um...I mean regret that it might be known rather than regretting that their blue pill worked.
On the post: Canadian ISPs Continue Quest To Bankrupt TVAddons, Site That Hosted Tons Of Legal Kodi Addons
Real or imagined infringement, which is actually illegal?
There does not appear to be any depth that corporations will not go, even if they don't actually own the IP they are 'defending'. While RICO may not apply in Canada, there sure seems to be a collaboration to harm those that 'might' enable infringement. To those Canadian Telcos, what is actually to their detriment? They don't own any of the IP involved, do they?
I have been using Kodi for many years, but I have never used it to stream any infringing sites. I do use it to view/hear my video/audio collection, but that has nothing to do with infringement.
On the post: Being Designated A 'Hate Group' By The SPLC Isn't Defamation, Says Federal Court
Re: Re: Re: Sure about that?
I suspect that 'The Proud Boys" will take all the rope they need without anyone actually providing it. What is more important is whether that rope is given more exposure than it deserves or if it is burned from one end to the other by more pragmatic heads. Faux news insensitive racist, sexist, morons should not be given a louder voice, though this is overcome only by sensible, respectable (if they exist) talking heads that speak more, rather than less.
While I am not a fan of 'wokeness', I am a fan of tolerance. The overly sensitive seem to think any form of unwokeness is a hanging offence (with or without proof). I am more in favor of the proof routine, along with the innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re:
You assume that there are enough citizens who recognize what the government is doing to them. There are a couple of sides to that. There are those that are over the top, and maliciously so, anti government, then there are many, many more who have many more cares than what the government is doing to them. At some point, those two ends will find a middle, and hopefully find a peaceful way to ameliorate the situation. If not, there is the Jefferson solution, and he is attributed as a major contributor to the Constitution:
There is more than one applicable quote at that link.
On the post: Microsoft Asks For Actual Spying Evidence To Justify Blackballing Of Huawei
Following the money
Isn't the real question whether Huawei is spying for the Chinese government, or that Cisco is spying for the US government? By eliminating Huawei in the US it would leave Cisco as the only one spying from routers (that is outed spy's) and that's the way the US government wants it. The whole trade thingy is smoke and mirrors. So maybe the real question is who it the third party, open sourced software, firmware, and hardware network level router manufacturer that everyone should turn to?
Now as to Microsoft's position, they don't care who is spying on whom (as they spy on all their customers), they care about the cash flow from a major Chinese producer that might not be able to buy from Microsoft any more. That they care, one way or the other, about the spying would be contrary to investor's interest.
On the post: Working Futures, An Anthology Of Speculative Fiction About The Future Of Work
Re: Re: FREE Short Topical Story!
Come on Tim, these stories are supposed to be about working in the future, not sexual fantasies that express abnormal tendencies.
Of course, if you're into that kind of thing...have at it. Oh, and for sure, post them for free and with copious links. One wouldn't want to disappoint the largest fan base.
On the post: Being Designated A 'Hate Group' By The SPLC Isn't Defamation, Says Federal Court
Re:
If they are statements of opinion rather than misrepresentations of fact, then yes to both.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re: It is impossible to define impossible when it is possibl
The judge does have the power. She could just order them to give her the information. Now that order might get appealed, and that appeal might go to the Supreme Court, and they could rain some judicial hell down on the judge, but the statement would have been made. If many judges do the same thing, and call out the Supreme Courts error in giving the government such power in violation of the Constitution, then maybe the Supreme Court will reconsider its position.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
Re: Re: It is impossible to define impossible when it is possibl
Sorry, while the Supreme Court might be the only judicial avenue available for reexamination, that does not mean that each and every one of us does not have the right, and responsibility to consider the ramifications of totalitarian action by anyone. Nor is it the only recourse. I think submitting to the governments cry of 'state secrets' all the time goes beyond the powers invested in our government.
While I do think that some things should be closely held for some short periods of time, I do not think the government should be able to act without recourse...in anything. In our system it is up to the courts to aid us in that, and here, the court let us down.
On the post: DC Court: State Secrets Privilege Trumps Any Citizens' Right To Know Whether Or Not Their Own Gov't Is Trying To Kill Them
It is impossible to define impossible when it is possible
It is not impossible, but it would take the government overcoming its embarrassment at possessing lists that they intend to extrajudicialy terminate the life of US citizens who have not been convicted of crimes that carry the death penalty. If all it takes is for the government to claim 'state secrets' to kill anyone at all, then what is to stop them from killing anyone they don't like and claim 'state secret' when brought to trial or sued for violation of Constitutional rights.
It's not that I'm surprised that this judge didn't take the time to review the lists as well as the underlying reasoning behind not only the creation of the lists but the reasoning for inclusion of anyone listed, but also that she publicly twisted and turned to justify the governments 'state secret' defense without understanding the necessity of that secrecy. That unexplained 'state secrets' were sufficient to overcome 'standing', where is the hope that anyone else could be safe from government sanctions, up to and including extrajudicial death. I would bet several good Internets that the government could come up with enough weasel words to explain the necessity of the so called 'state secret' without actually revealing the secret. Whether that explanation would pass the laugh test is another story.
I never knew that they allowed judges to play Twister while on the bench.
We either live by and respect the Constitution or we turn into an authoritarian state. Edicts like this one show once again that we are on the move toward authoritarianism, which is contrary to the established basis for our country, and a violation of the Judges oath to uphold the Constitution.
On the post: Rep. Mark Takano Introduces Bill That Would Keep Companies From Blocking Defendants' Access To Evidence
The proof is in the pudding, show the recipe
They should add a time limit for accomplishing the reviews. In addition, they should make it clear that any algorithm that has not been thoroughly reviewed is ineligible to be used as evidence of any wrongdoing. They should also make it clear that this law is effective to courts at all levels, so that some state prosecutors cannot claim it doesn't apply to them. To do so might require some language that clarifies that trade secrets cannot overcome the 6th Amendment.
While congress may not be able to force judges to side with defendants in cases where access to third-party software is at stake, they can make it illegal for them to allow unreviewable evidence to be presented as the Constitution requires that one be able to face their accusers. Even if it is third party trade privileged software that can't testify for itself, but can be analyzed and refuted by defense experts. And while that could be expensive, it is better than a denial of confrontation.
Next >>