I don't like our election process. I don't like political parties. I don't like soft money in politics. I don't like politicians not being held accountable. I don't like politicians voting in favor of something that is not in their constituencies best interest. I don't like the way the Senate implements its advise and consent roll. Etc.. This is the short list.
And I really don't like that all of these are fixable, but power hungry politicians won't do anything about it because they like the power they have, and fixing things might remove either their power or them from their power position.
I am waiting for a list of reasons to actually trust the government, that isn't laughably strained. Even some of our founding fathers had little faith in governments. For example:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson"
That may be their strategy in letting the defendants off. Over charge them so the court will not allow it to go to trial. If their serious, they could include lesser charges as well, and let the jury decide which is appropriate.
What in gods name makes you think you know how I voted?
Beyond that, governments in general have given plenty of reason not to trust them. However, there are specific reasons for not trusting them, not general reasons.
It's not just about privacy, it's about government, not business
The Government should not be in the business of selling anything, especially private information gleaned from requirements generated for enforcement purposes, and they certainly shouldn't be selling votes, as they often do. To begin with, it's our information, not theirs. Secondly the Government isn't a business, it's a government.
Now if the Government comes into possession of something they no longer need, and that something has some value, then they could transfer it off their books for a consideration to a private entity. But in the instances related in the article, the data being sold is imaginary property and it isn't like the government doesn't need it any more.
If they are in need of money, maybe they should take a good hard look at some of their wasteful spending. We don't need bridges to nowhere, and we don't need military projects that don't work, and we don't need a military industrial complex. There are too many other complex's to deal with, like politician's egos and political parties.
I see property, and by that I mean real property (not limited to real estate) as having form, substance, and possibly function. Real property can be damaged by natural events such as hurricanes, fire, flood, hail, tornadoes, lightning, etc... Your copy of a book, sheet music, recording would be real property, the concepts expressed in those are not.
On the other hand, imaginary property cannot be damaged by natural events, like the song 'borrowed (I thought 'stolen' as a bit strong) by Wilma above', there was no actual loss to Betty, with the possible exception of attribution. The song itself is a bit ethereal, as it floats through the air, or even if it is written down or recorded. That is until we get to the monetization of imaginary property, which has since lead us to control, which then lead us to excessive control, and the mischaracterization of imaginary property as real property.
It is the monetization that brings us to the over protection, and lengthening protections, and rabid control, and the spread of such protections worldwide for the benefit of corporations rather than creators of imaginary property. The concept of having an idea and then living off it forever, or even getting rich off it is anathema to the original conception of imaginary property, at least in the United States...
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Which only allows Congress to do something about imaginary property, but does not require it to do so.
I like the reforms mentioned in the article above, but would add some. Imaginary property cannot be transferred from the creator, but may be licensed, loaned, or contracted to another entity for some limited times for some consideration. By limited times we should look to the copyright clause that is in the Constitution and quoted above for guidance. If the purpose is truly to promote creativity, then any protection dies with the creator, and not just limitations created by law, which should also be short enough to encourage creators to continue creating.
For example the original 14 years for copyright (too long in my mind, seven would be better) with a purchased extension for another 14 (or7) years if it is considered economically feasible.
And for patents, the current ten year limit is OK, but new patents should not be issued for small tweaks to existing patents creating the concept of 'evergreening'. If a new idea is added to an existing patent, and that idea is worth it, it should be able to stand on its own without the underlying patent and be patentable by itself. Nor should patents be issued to anyone that is not in the process of bringing a product to market, and if, within a reasonable time, no product is produced the patent expires. The fact of not being able to transfer a patent should also help with the non-practicing entities (those without a product asserting imaginary patent rights).
These ideas should be taken into consideration along with those reforms mentioned in the article, and no, I am not claiming any imaginary rights to these ideas.
I am wondering what Microsoft expected from an AI chatbot interacting with humans in the wild? Failing to realize that some percentage of immature persons will mess with the application, understanding that it will learn from their messing, seems like a foregone conclusion.
They might go further. Their history texts could deny all wars since the beginning of time. Oh, and books (both fiction and non-fiction), just reading about abhorrent acts could spark the imagination and cause one to visualize what the text describes. That just wouldn't acceptable and needs to be blocked...by law.
It will also be interesting to see how treatment of aboriginal Australians gets handled.
Re: Re: Performing as intended, at least for the NFL
Does 4G work at the concession stand or in the restrooms (not owning a cell phone, nor one who attends football games, I wouldn't know)? If it does, then one would expect 5G to work there as well. This example is showing the limitations of 5G, not their exaggerated prognostications. If 5G is to be better, then it should do everything 4G does, but better, and maybe more.
No worries, it will be announced when about half the expected 5G users have bought their hardware, or 2.5 years after the initial worldwide roll out, whichever comes first. Shortly thereafter it will be announced that 4G will be deprecated within a very short amount of time. The need for hardware churn is never ending.
The value of 5G in an NFL stadium would be for better streaming of game footage, and THAT probably caused team owners to throw a proper hissy fit.
It is a wonder that the NFL even partnered with Verizon given the above. But it is even more perplexing when one takes notice that it works in 'seating areas' but not anywhere else. It would seem the team owners would want the reverse.
Then again, installing a sufficient number of 5G nodes to encompass all the internal areas might be too expense from an equipment standpoint. Or is it the increased electric bill for the millimeter-wave signals?
"Can I have Equifax remove my personal information from their system under CCPA?"
Probably not. Now I don't know much about CCPA, but Wikipedia says"
"Intentions of the Act. The intentions of the Act are to provide California residents with the right to: Know what personal data is being collected about them.; Know whether their personal data is sold or disclosed and to whom."
Besides, none of us ever signed up with any of the credit reporting agencies, but they have files on us anyway. All of the information they have is from other sources, and it is likely that we never gave any of them permission to create files on us, yet there they are.
The CCPA seems to require them to tell us what they have, that is if you are a California resident, and possibly make corrections. It would be interesting if they actually started to inform us of each and every request made each and every time a request is made. That might raise the cost of making a request to the point where the requester's might think twice about requesting.
I wonder how much information of those buying credit reports on individuals is kept in their database? I wonder how much of that information was exposed, but not reported? If I was buying credit reports from a company with such lousy network security, and was providing sensitive information to them, I would be very concerned.
By the same token, I wouldn't necessarily suspect that any of the other credit reporting agencies had any better security, and since the FTC let this one off so easily, we shouldn't expect any improvement any time soon. For any of them.
Now the problem is, which credit reporting agency is the least riskiest?
Even with this shoddy, undervalued settlement, wouldn't it be cheaper to secure their network, rather than undergo the embarrassment (and all the PR costs related to that) and eventual payout when they get hacked.
Given yesterday's article on Cyber-Insurance, how much of this settlement was controlled by their insurance company, rather than themselves?
On the post: The DMV Is Selling Your Data To Vast Array Of Third Parties
Re: Re: Re: Re: it's about government
Not.
I don't like our election process. I don't like political parties. I don't like soft money in politics. I don't like politicians not being held accountable. I don't like politicians voting in favor of something that is not in their constituencies best interest. I don't like the way the Senate implements its advise and consent roll. Etc.. This is the short list.
And I really don't like that all of these are fixable, but power hungry politicians won't do anything about it because they like the power they have, and fixing things might remove either their power or them from their power position.
I am waiting for a list of reasons to actually trust the government, that isn't laughably strained. Even some of our founding fathers had little faith in governments. For example:
On the post: Encryption Working Group Releases Paper To 'Move The Conversation Forward'
Re: Re:
You guys wouldn't be suggesting that repeated listings of this https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/09/10/moving-encryption-policy-conversation-forward-pub-79573 URL would actually do something in Googles rankings, would you?
On the post: Houston Police Officer Who Led Botched Raid That Killed Two People Now Facing Felony Murder Charges
Re:
That may be their strategy in letting the defendants off. Over charge them so the court will not allow it to go to trial. If their serious, they could include lesser charges as well, and let the jury decide which is appropriate.
On the post: That Time EFF Got A Copyright Takedown Demand Of Its Own Artwork
Re:
It's just hidden, as in down voted by the community. You can see it by clicking on the underlined Click Here. It's the first comment.
On the post: Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property: Discuss
Re: Re:
No, but they would sue if Wilma hadn't paid the license fees on the patent for the brontosaurus burgers she's been feeding Fred and Pebbles.
On the post: The DMV Is Selling Your Data To Vast Array Of Third Parties
Re: Re: it's about government
What in gods name makes you think you know how I voted?
Beyond that, governments in general have given plenty of reason not to trust them. However, there are specific reasons for not trusting them, not general reasons.
On the post: The DMV Is Selling Your Data To Vast Array Of Third Parties
It's not just about privacy, it's about government, not business
The Government should not be in the business of selling anything, especially private information gleaned from requirements generated for enforcement purposes, and they certainly shouldn't be selling votes, as they often do. To begin with, it's our information, not theirs. Secondly the Government isn't a business, it's a government.
Now if the Government comes into possession of something they no longer need, and that something has some value, then they could transfer it off their books for a consideration to a private entity. But in the instances related in the article, the data being sold is imaginary property and it isn't like the government doesn't need it any more.
If they are in need of money, maybe they should take a good hard look at some of their wasteful spending. We don't need bridges to nowhere, and we don't need military projects that don't work, and we don't need a military industrial complex. There are too many other complex's to deal with, like politician's egos and political parties.
On the post: AT&T's Terrible New TV Branding Confuses Even AT&T
Re: Re: Marketing
You both left out Voodoo!
On the post: Student Sues College After Being Told Not To Exercise His First Amendment Rights Without The School's Permission
Re: Three day waiting period
Please wait three days before spouting such nonsense.
On the post: Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property: Discuss
Yet another analogy...
I see property, and by that I mean real property (not limited to real estate) as having form, substance, and possibly function. Real property can be damaged by natural events such as hurricanes, fire, flood, hail, tornadoes, lightning, etc... Your copy of a book, sheet music, recording would be real property, the concepts expressed in those are not.
On the other hand, imaginary property cannot be damaged by natural events, like the song 'borrowed (I thought 'stolen' as a bit strong) by Wilma above', there was no actual loss to Betty, with the possible exception of attribution. The song itself is a bit ethereal, as it floats through the air, or even if it is written down or recorded. That is until we get to the monetization of imaginary property, which has since lead us to control, which then lead us to excessive control, and the mischaracterization of imaginary property as real property.
It is the monetization that brings us to the over protection, and lengthening protections, and rabid control, and the spread of such protections worldwide for the benefit of corporations rather than creators of imaginary property. The concept of having an idea and then living off it forever, or even getting rich off it is anathema to the original conception of imaginary property, at least in the United States...
Which only allows Congress to do something about imaginary property, but does not require it to do so.
I like the reforms mentioned in the article above, but would add some. Imaginary property cannot be transferred from the creator, but may be licensed, loaned, or contracted to another entity for some limited times for some consideration. By limited times we should look to the copyright clause that is in the Constitution and quoted above for guidance. If the purpose is truly to promote creativity, then any protection dies with the creator, and not just limitations created by law, which should also be short enough to encourage creators to continue creating.
For example the original 14 years for copyright (too long in my mind, seven would be better) with a purchased extension for another 14 (or7) years if it is considered economically feasible.
And for patents, the current ten year limit is OK, but new patents should not be issued for small tweaks to existing patents creating the concept of 'evergreening'. If a new idea is added to an existing patent, and that idea is worth it, it should be able to stand on its own without the underlying patent and be patentable by itself. Nor should patents be issued to anyone that is not in the process of bringing a product to market, and if, within a reasonable time, no product is produced the patent expires. The fact of not being able to transfer a patent should also help with the non-practicing entities (those without a product asserting imaginary patent rights).
These ideas should be taken into consideration along with those reforms mentioned in the article, and no, I am not claiming any imaginary rights to these ideas.
On the post: That Time Taylor Swift Threatened To Sue Microsoft Over Its Racist Chatbot
What normally happens with groups of kids
I am wondering what Microsoft expected from an AI chatbot interacting with humans in the wild? Failing to realize that some percentage of immature persons will mess with the application, understanding that it will learn from their messing, seems like a foregone conclusion.
On the post: DOJ Wants Apple, Google To Hand Over Names And Phone Numbers Of 10,000 App Users
Re: And the haystack gets bigger
I find it interesting that Google Play lists 42 similar apps that are not being targeted. Think of the potential haystack losses.
On the post: Months After Christchurch Shooting, The Australian Government Is Issuing Site-Blocking Orders Targeting Footage Of The Incident
Re: So... Movies are illegal now?!
They might go further. Their history texts could deny all wars since the beginning of time. Oh, and books (both fiction and non-fiction), just reading about abhorrent acts could spark the imagination and cause one to visualize what the text describes. That just wouldn't acceptable and needs to be blocked...by law.
It will also be interesting to see how treatment of aboriginal Australians gets handled.
On the post: Verizon Can't Stop Over-hyping 5G; This Time In NFL Stadiums
Re: Re: Performing as intended, at least for the NFL
Does 4G work at the concession stand or in the restrooms (not owning a cell phone, nor one who attends football games, I wouldn't know)? If it does, then one would expect 5G to work there as well. This example is showing the limitations of 5G, not their exaggerated prognostications. If 5G is to be better, then it should do everything 4G does, but better, and maybe more.
On the post: Verizon Can't Stop Over-hyping 5G; This Time In NFL Stadiums
Re:
No worries, it will be announced when about half the expected 5G users have bought their hardware, or 2.5 years after the initial worldwide roll out, whichever comes first. Shortly thereafter it will be announced that 4G will be deprecated within a very short amount of time. The need for hardware churn is never ending.
On the post: Months After Christchurch Shooting, The Australian Government Is Issuing Site-Blocking Orders Targeting Footage Of The Incident
Re: Abhorrent
Police body camera footage where is shows the police acting illegally in furtherance of the Minister's agenda.
On the post: Verizon Can't Stop Over-hyping 5G; This Time In NFL Stadiums
Performing as intended, at least for the NFL
The value of 5G in an NFL stadium would be for better streaming of game footage, and THAT probably caused team owners to throw a proper hissy fit.
It is a wonder that the NFL even partnered with Verizon given the above. But it is even more perplexing when one takes notice that it works in 'seating areas' but not anywhere else. It would seem the team owners would want the reverse.
Then again, installing a sufficient number of 5G nodes to encompass all the internal areas might be too expense from an equipment standpoint. Or is it the increased electric bill for the millimeter-wave signals?
On the post: Equifax Victims Jump Through Hoops To Nab Settlement Money They Won't Get Anyway
Re: Is CCPA required for Equifax?
Probably not. Now I don't know much about CCPA, but Wikipedia says"
Besides, none of us ever signed up with any of the credit reporting agencies, but they have files on us anyway. All of the information they have is from other sources, and it is likely that we never gave any of them permission to create files on us, yet there they are.
The CCPA seems to require them to tell us what they have, that is if you are a California resident, and possibly make corrections. It would be interesting if they actually started to inform us of each and every request made each and every time a request is made. That might raise the cost of making a request to the point where the requester's might think twice about requesting.
On the post: Equifax Victims Jump Through Hoops To Nab Settlement Money They Won't Get Anyway
Re: Re: ROI
I wonder how much information of those buying credit reports on individuals is kept in their database? I wonder how much of that information was exposed, but not reported? If I was buying credit reports from a company with such lousy network security, and was providing sensitive information to them, I would be very concerned.
By the same token, I wouldn't necessarily suspect that any of the other credit reporting agencies had any better security, and since the FTC let this one off so easily, we shouldn't expect any improvement any time soon. For any of them.
Now the problem is, which credit reporting agency is the least riskiest?
On the post: Equifax Victims Jump Through Hoops To Nab Settlement Money They Won't Get Anyway
ROI
Even with this shoddy, undervalued settlement, wouldn't it be cheaper to secure their network, rather than undergo the embarrassment (and all the PR costs related to that) and eventual payout when they get hacked.
Given yesterday's article on Cyber-Insurance, how much of this settlement was controlled by their insurance company, rather than themselves?
Next >>