Thin ice and global warming, careful where you step
The piece I read yesterday about this suggested that Pai would appeal, and why not, it isn't his money. Besides, an appeal might earn him a bonus, but not from Sinclair because Pai allowed them to get caught lying to the FCC. From Sinclair's point of view, that MUST have been Pai's fault. After all, Sinclair is righteous.
Re: Re: Are the goose and the gander on the same page?
Those numbers don't tend to be public knowledge, but names are. Are you recommending the publication of personally identifying numbers? Do you have any idea that would do for identity thieves?
Let us say that George Smythe has been acquitted of some dastardly deed and this then pops to the top of the search list. Let us also assume that my name is also George Smythe. That would mean that anyone searching for my name could assume that I had been, at the very least, accused of some dastardly deed. How well will that play out?
I would like to know how those in favor of the RTBF feel about smearing others, intentionally or not?
Sorry, I didn't mean to demean concern about outside influence, I merely meant that we also shoot ourselves in the foot, in systemic ways.
Foreign influence is bad, but so are things we do to ourselves. Getting past ideologies that like the bad things we do to ourselves is problematic. Getting paste foreign influence is easier, just identify it and turn it off, as was done in this case.
Of course it becomes more difficult when the truth is called fake news and fake news is received as the truth. Those things require more speech, better sourcing, more believable investigations which would then be followed by more speech.
Why aren't you concerned that anyone who is not a US citizen is interfering/trying to manipulate our elections. It doesn't really matter what the nationality of the interferer is. It matters that there is some foreign influence interfering.
"UPDATE: 8 hours after popular.info's report, Facebook has taken down the Ukrainian "I Love America" page & every other page identified in the piece This was a huge network pushing pro-Trump propaganda with greater reach than the NYT & WashPost"
I guess Facebook can be moved, it just depends upon how you poke them (I have heard, though don't know for sure that 'poke' is a term about some kind of action on Facebook. Depending upon what that term means on Facebook then I absolutely intended the double entendre, or not).
My guess is that these ALPR's are about as accurate as the reverse warrants for cellphones in the area. The don't tell anyone who was driving, or what they were doing. They merely say that that some license plate was in the area at a specific time on a specific day.
Now that might help LEO's to some possible leads, but it doesn't mean that any of those leads, lead to the culprits. The culprits might have walked to the crime, or stolen someone else's license plate to do the job and switched them back shortly after the crime. Or the car was stolen, or the car just happened to be driving by near the time the crime was happening. Or the car was borrowed, or the ALPR misread the plate due to some dirt on the plate, or something else that is not nefarious.
I cannot see any actual help here. There is some possible help, but no actual help.
It may or may not be indicative of Amazon making the site less user friendly, but in the list of companies in the left panel (where one can limit the search), there is no choice for Allbirds, even though that was the search term. I also found that the offerings from Allbirds seem to be in size 8, only, which wouldn't work for me.
That may mean that Allbirds isn't looking for Amazon to be it's lead outlet, and therefore isn't working at it. Their own page has many more offerings, and many more sizes.
That leaves Amazon with the choice of listing other options, or none.
I forgot one part. Do you have a TV in your bedroom? Do you do some things in there you wouldn't want watched? I think that line is fairly easily defined, but it won't be easy. A few stolen TV to ISP or Cable Company streams of folks in certain positions of authority will put the kibosh on the corporate 'I want' syndrome, that is if handled well.
What could they sue over, at least for now? Reverse class action lawsuits, while fairly worthless for the plaintiffs (so far as settlements and recovery are concerned) still scare the hell out of companies.
And while regulatory capture has become a thing, I suspect that not just the constituents, but the families of law makers would rise up if someone threatened to take their TV away from them. Then there is the surveillance component. I am not sure how long the Supreme Court will allow that to continue, especially when it comes with the TV they just purchased.
So, maybe, but I do remain optimistic on the whole, even while our rights are whittled away bit by bit. There is an end, we just can't see it yet. They (companies and the copyright maximalists) will step over the line.
One could use the low tech moderation method of a piece of tape over the camera. The ISP could complain all it wants, while you claim it is a broken camera, one that isn't their property and have no right to repair. Then, of course, until they stop installing HDMI, RGB or other video connectivity ports, one can always use an external device to generate programming, streamed, recorded, or live. Then, you don't connect the TV to the Internet, just the external devices.
If only 'peace officers' were required to know the law
If I worked in an environment that allowed me to do my job without knowing about the rules and/or consequences of not knowing the rules or how to do my job, it wouldn't take much before I would be fired. Even in right to work states. It just takes a bit of documentation to fire me. In employment at will states it would take even less.
But then two things. The first is that public employees have been allowed to have unions, and those unions negotiate contracts under the threat of withholding public services lest the public acquiesce to their demands (maybe the only thing Reagan got right when he didn't), and the Supreme Court, where they held that law enforcement officers didn't need to know the laws they are required to enforce.
Not only should the police be required to know the laws they enforce, in detail, but they should also know the appropriate methodologies for applying those laws. The whole concept of 'qualified immunity' comes from there being no established reason for the public official to know that what they did was wrong, yet many untrained public persons can tell that the violation obfuscated the Constitution, regardless of precedent. We have few courts that are willing to establish that precedent so that the same, or similar violations would be illegal in the future. Is it possible that it is because their decision will not be told to or trained to police officers who have no reason to know the law?
There is a four part article at Reason called "Imagining a World Without Qualified Immunity" (Parts I-Iv)(I could post all four links but the search isn't that hard) where the author goes through three articles spouting statistics about how little impact the removal of qualified immunity would have, and in the fourth discusses the incentives that the lawyers may or may not have in pursuing civil rights cases.
What I found lacking was any analysis of whether there should or should not be any pre-existing case law about whether a particular act violated the Constitution and/or whether or not the individual doing the alleged violation should have known or didn't need to know if it was in fact a violation prior to committing that act?
Professionals should know their business. Are they arguing that police are not professionals? If they are, what are the implications of that?
On the post: The Best People: White House Emailed Talking Points Meant For Surrogates To Dems, Tried To Recall Email Afterwards
Slapstick imitation done badly
Who is channeling Laurel and who is channeling Hardy? Or is it Dean and Jerry. Or maybe all three Stooges are at play.
On the post: Courts Shoot Down Yet Another FCC Proposal For Being Factually Sketchy
Thin ice and global warming, careful where you step
The piece I read yesterday about this suggested that Pai would appeal, and why not, it isn't his money. Besides, an appeal might earn him a bonus, but not from Sinclair because Pai allowed them to get caught lying to the FCC. From Sinclair's point of view, that MUST have been Pai's fault. After all, Sinclair is righteous.
On the post: Phew: EU Court Of Justice Says Right To Be Forgotten Is Not A Global Censorship Tool (Just An EU One)
Re: Re: Re: Authenticated but Not Correctly Translated? We&rsquo
I always apologize when I find a need to use Google Translate. But it is better than nothing.
Then, if it was the state department, they have plenty of actual translators, that actually do a good job, so that assertion doesn't make any sense.
On the post: Other Big CJEU Case Says Google Must Put Certain Links At The Top Of Search Results
Re: Re: Are the goose and the gander on the same page?
Those numbers don't tend to be public knowledge, but names are. Are you recommending the publication of personally identifying numbers? Do you have any idea that would do for identity thieves?
On the post: Phew: EU Court Of Justice Says Right To Be Forgotten Is Not A Global Censorship Tool (Just An EU One)
Re:
Pray tell, where is the bias in this ruling?
On the post: Other Big CJEU Case Says Google Must Put Certain Links At The Top Of Search Results
Are the goose and the gander on the same page?
Let us say that George Smythe has been acquitted of some dastardly deed and this then pops to the top of the search list. Let us also assume that my name is also George Smythe. That would mean that anyone searching for my name could assume that I had been, at the very least, accused of some dastardly deed. How well will that play out?
I would like to know how those in favor of the RTBF feel about smearing others, intentionally or not?
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I didn't mean to demean concern about outside influence, I merely meant that we also shoot ourselves in the foot, in systemic ways.
Foreign influence is bad, but so are things we do to ourselves. Getting past ideologies that like the bad things we do to ourselves is problematic. Getting paste foreign influence is easier, just identify it and turn it off, as was done in this case.
Of course it becomes more difficult when the truth is called fake news and fake news is received as the truth. Those things require more speech, better sourcing, more believable investigations which would then be followed by more speech.
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
Re: Re:
Haven't political parties and soft money already established that process without any foreign help?
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
Re:
Why aren't you concerned that anyone who is not a US citizen is interfering/trying to manipulate our elections. It doesn't really matter what the nationality of the interferer is. It matters that there is some foreign influence interfering.
On the post: Cable Giant Spectrum On Quest To Outlaw 'Insane' Streaming Password Sharing
Re: Re: Re:
How will they be sure?
On the post: Another Day, Another Major Disinformation Effort Facebook Thinks Is Ok
How long does it take to turn a super tanker?
I guess Facebook can be moved, it just depends upon how you poke them (I have heard, though don't know for sure that 'poke' is a term about some kind of action on Facebook. Depending upon what that term means on Facebook then I absolutely intended the double entendre, or not).
On the post: Automatic License Plate Readers Are The Latest Neighborhood Perk
Re: Two crimes
My guess is that these ALPR's are about as accurate as the reverse warrants for cellphones in the area. The don't tell anyone who was driving, or what they were doing. They merely say that that some license plate was in the area at a specific time on a specific day.
Now that might help LEO's to some possible leads, but it doesn't mean that any of those leads, lead to the culprits. The culprits might have walked to the crime, or stolen someone else's license plate to do the job and switched them back shortly after the crime. Or the car was stolen, or the car just happened to be driving by near the time the crime was happening. Or the car was borrowed, or the ALPR misread the plate due to some dirt on the plate, or something else that is not nefarious.
I cannot see any actual help here. There is some possible help, but no actual help.
On the post: People Freaking Out About Amazon Copying A Shoe Are Totally Missing The Point
Re:
It may or may not be indicative of Amazon making the site less user friendly, but in the list of companies in the left panel (where one can limit the search), there is no choice for Allbirds, even though that was the search term. I also found that the offerings from Allbirds seem to be in size 8, only, which wouldn't work for me.
That may mean that Allbirds isn't looking for Amazon to be it's lead outlet, and therefore isn't working at it. Their own page has many more offerings, and many more sizes.
That leaves Amazon with the choice of listing other options, or none.
On the post: Cable Giant Spectrum On Quest To Outlaw 'Insane' Streaming Password Sharing
Re:
I forgot one part. Do you have a TV in your bedroom? Do you do some things in there you wouldn't want watched? I think that line is fairly easily defined, but it won't be easy. A few stolen TV to ISP or Cable Company streams of folks in certain positions of authority will put the kibosh on the corporate 'I want' syndrome, that is if handled well.
On the post: Private Companies Gathering Plate Data Are Selling Access To People's Movements For $20 A Search
Re: Re: Re:
So do garage doors.
On the post: Cable Giant Spectrum On Quest To Outlaw 'Insane' Streaming Password Sharing
Re:
What could they sue over, at least for now? Reverse class action lawsuits, while fairly worthless for the plaintiffs (so far as settlements and recovery are concerned) still scare the hell out of companies.
And while regulatory capture has become a thing, I suspect that not just the constituents, but the families of law makers would rise up if someone threatened to take their TV away from them. Then there is the surveillance component. I am not sure how long the Supreme Court will allow that to continue, especially when it comes with the TV they just purchased.
So, maybe, but I do remain optimistic on the whole, even while our rights are whittled away bit by bit. There is an end, we just can't see it yet. They (companies and the copyright maximalists) will step over the line.
On the post: Cable Giant Spectrum On Quest To Outlaw 'Insane' Streaming Password Sharing
Re:
One could use the low tech moderation method of a piece of tape over the camera. The ISP could complain all it wants, while you claim it is a broken camera, one that isn't their property and have no right to repair. Then, of course, until they stop installing HDMI, RGB or other video connectivity ports, one can always use an external device to generate programming, streamed, recorded, or live. Then, you don't connect the TV to the Internet, just the external devices.
On the post: Another Nail In the Coffin Of Corporate Sovereignty, As Massive Asian Trade Deal RCEP Nears Completion Without It
Re:
What in the article makes you think the author thinks the diminishment of ISDS is a problem?
That statement seems to be fairly specific. Maybe you didn't read to the end?
On the post: Court Shoots Down Cop's Assertion That Driving Without Breaking Any Laws Is 'Suspicious'
Re: If only 'peace officers' were required to know the law
Reason published today a Part V in the series "Imagining a World Without Qualified Immunity" which does in fact get to the questions I raised above.
On the post: Court Shoots Down Cop's Assertion That Driving Without Breaking Any Laws Is 'Suspicious'
If only 'peace officers' were required to know the law
If I worked in an environment that allowed me to do my job without knowing about the rules and/or consequences of not knowing the rules or how to do my job, it wouldn't take much before I would be fired. Even in right to work states. It just takes a bit of documentation to fire me. In employment at will states it would take even less.
But then two things. The first is that public employees have been allowed to have unions, and those unions negotiate contracts under the threat of withholding public services lest the public acquiesce to their demands (maybe the only thing Reagan got right when he didn't), and the Supreme Court, where they held that law enforcement officers didn't need to know the laws they are required to enforce.
Not only should the police be required to know the laws they enforce, in detail, but they should also know the appropriate methodologies for applying those laws. The whole concept of 'qualified immunity' comes from there being no established reason for the public official to know that what they did was wrong, yet many untrained public persons can tell that the violation obfuscated the Constitution, regardless of precedent. We have few courts that are willing to establish that precedent so that the same, or similar violations would be illegal in the future. Is it possible that it is because their decision will not be told to or trained to police officers who have no reason to know the law?
There is a four part article at Reason called "Imagining a World Without Qualified Immunity" (Parts I-Iv)(I could post all four links but the search isn't that hard) where the author goes through three articles spouting statistics about how little impact the removal of qualified immunity would have, and in the fourth discusses the incentives that the lawyers may or may not have in pursuing civil rights cases.
What I found lacking was any analysis of whether there should or should not be any pre-existing case law about whether a particular act violated the Constitution and/or whether or not the individual doing the alleged violation should have known or didn't need to know if it was in fact a violation prior to committing that act?
Professionals should know their business. Are they arguing that police are not professionals? If they are, what are the implications of that?
Next >>