We're talking about people who are responsible for Hollywood Accounting and Payola, and claims that piracy is costing $74 TRILLION dollars, etc and similar insanity. (eg, greater than the entire world GDP combined.)
Maybe linking to a page that links to an infringement should also be an infringement. That is 1 hop away. What about 2 hops away? What about the six degrees of Kevin Bacon on the internet? Maybe it should just be infringement to link to anything on the internet that could recursively link to anything infringing. This would instantly eliminate search engines.
question in the UK about why their politicians are granting the government powers to snoop on every member of the public at a level that goes way beyond what is considered appropriate.
Doesn't the UK already have big brother cameras spying on everyone, everywhere beyond what most would consider appropriate?
Conclusion 1. "While their [law enforcement] aims are legitimate, . . . ."
[Citation Needed] One should no longer assume that the aims of law enforcement are legitimate. That ship has long since sailed.
Conclusion 3. "given that criminals can develop their own encryption technologies"
Criminals don't need to develop their own encryption technologies. There are already several good algorithms, well known, published in textbooks, and that do not have a back door and are unlikely to have a trap door.
Conclusion 4. "New technologies which generate once off encryption keys between end users are now being deployed. These keys are not stored centrally by the operator. These types of technologies make lawful interception in a timely manner very difficult. There is every reason to believe that more technology advances will emerge that will continue to erode the possibility of identifying or ecrypting electronic communications."
Oh, hey! I've got one! Let me try! Carry two devices. A regular phone with a mobile plan, just like most people. This provides network access either via WiFi or cellular. A second device, which has no SIM, and is always in Airplane mode, is used to run the communications app which does the encryption. They bad guys [eg, NSA, etc] might hack your phone, but it is only being used to pass already encrypted communications from the other device which has the app you use to communicate, and little else.
Parallel Construction is a euphemism for: conspiracy of prosecutors and law enforcement to commit perjury by lying to the court and the defense about what their evidence actually is.
The literacy rate of a nation is largely a reflection of its education system.
If a newspaper wants to publish or not publish its content online is the newspaper owner's own choice. Whether you, or whether I agree with the owner's choice doesn't really matter.
If online newspapers undermine dead tree newspapers, then that's progress. The telegraph undermined the pony express. The telephone undermined the telegraph. The automobile undermined the horse and buggy. Things change.
Fake News is unrelated whether news is online or in dead tree format. Every country probably has had for decades, tabloid news in dead tree format that is loaded with fake news. The real question is how gullible are people? The real lesson is determine what news sources you trust -- no matter what format they are published in.
Telling someone that the Taco Johns is two blocks north and to the right is like linking.
Telling someone that the Crack House is two blocks south and to the left is also like linking.
Why should the first example above be okay (presumably it is okay?), but the second example would be a crime? Maybe someone would make the 2nd statement in order to aid you in avoiding the crack house.
When visiting a repressive regime, the camera should encrypt the images using a one way key. The only copy of the decryption key is back home and inaccessible to the NSA, FBI, CIA, etc.
Make the device manufacturer financially liable for damage
Unlike most of my posts, this one is serious and not intended as sarcasm or parody.
Put the financial liability for damage caused by hacked devices upon the manufacturers of the device. Yes, seriously.
Let me head off several replies before anyone even replies. I'm NOT suggesting any sort of government certification or licensing or registration of devices. Just simply that if your device is hacked, the hacking results in financial damage, then the manufacturer has liability for the damages caused.
Simply don't ship devices that are hackable. Impossible!, you say? If that is true, then don't make any IoT devices. If it is impossible to prevent them from being used for massive damage, then why should you be making and selling them at all? That's like saying it is impossible to make a toaster that won't burn your house down. If true, then why should you be making or selling any toasters.
If it is possible to secure the devices, then do so. You might start looking at a lot of basic things like: * highly limit what internet ports your device uses * no default passwords * no back doors * use digitally signed software updates to ensure they are from the manufacturer * no insecure protocols * minimize exposed functionality to minimize attack surface
And other ideas to lock down your device. Steps like this substantially reduce the odds that your device will be hacked, and that you will incur liability from damages caused.
The problem that this fixes is that now device makers have a financial incentive to secure and lock down their devices. It isn't impossible. Yes, it may cost some additional time and engineering in the design.
But just as I expect a toaster to not burn my house down, I expect IoT devices to not be instantly and trivially hackable.
When I say that it is my considered opinion that Microsoft Windows 10 is a steaming pile of horse excrement with a fresh glazed topping of putrid festering goat vomit, that is not misusing or tarnishing the trademark.
As for misuse, the way I used it is intended to communicate EXACTLY and PRECISELY what company and product I am expressing an opinion about.
As for tarnishing, what I stated was an opinion, it may differ from some people's, but is in agreement with many other people's opinion. Feel free to form and express your own opinion in agreement or disagreement.
So content is censored based on a hash. Each company can submit a hash of something to be censored, and the others will comply with blocking it. Even though the other companies do not know exactly what is being blocked.
Now all the government has to do is coerce or manipulate Company A into censoring things that should never be censored, and Company B, C, etc will all happily censor it without having any idea what they are censoring.
Similarly Hollywood could coerce or manipulate the censorship of content without need of the Digital Millennium Censorship Act (DMCA).
Next in line will be politicians with thin skin, but I'm being redundant. Local police and sheriffs with thin skin. Rich people who want to avoid the Streisand Effect.
Next will be corporations which want to censor competitors, or viewpoints which are against their profitability. Maybe corporations want to tax us for clean air and water because it costs actual money to avoid polluting the air and ware, and thus is unprofitable. People should have to pay. You don't think clean air grows on trees do you?
More and more people will get in line to add things to the magic censorship list of hashes.
Let's not confuse bias with fake news, manufactured facts, distortions that stretch beyond any sane boundaries of 'spin', and just plain outright lies. Those things do not rise to and are undeserving of the word 'bias'.
Unlike older bogeymen words such as 'communism', the word 'terrorism' is the magical incantation which can be re-defined to mean whatever the government wants it to mean at the moment. A single word with both 'flexibility' and 'expandability' built right in. So upgrade your 'communist' to 'terrorist' today!
On the post: Ridiculous German Court Ruling Means Linking Online Is Now A Liability
Re: Re: Re: Linking is merely giving directions
We're talking about people who are responsible for Hollywood Accounting and Payola, and claims that piracy is costing $74 TRILLION dollars, etc and similar insanity. (eg, greater than the entire world GDP combined.)
Maybe linking to a page that links to an infringement should also be an infringement. That is 1 hop away. What about 2 hops away? What about the six degrees of Kevin Bacon on the internet? Maybe it should just be infringement to link to anything on the internet that could recursively link to anything infringing. This would instantly eliminate search engines.
On the post: European Court Of Justice Rules Against UK's Mass Surveillance Program
Spying eyes in the sky
Doesn't the UK already have big brother cameras spying on everyone, everywhere beyond what most would consider appropriate?
On the post: Remaining FCC Commissioners Promise To Gut Net Neutrality 'As Soon As Possible'
Forget Net Neutrality
I do not seem to be getting enough spam robocalls. As a concerned citizen I want to urge you to take measures to improve this situation.
Please help me FCC, you're my only hope.
Sincerely,
On the post: European Information Security Advisory Says Mandating Encryption Backdoors Will Just Make Everything Worse
Re:
Police work is easy in a police state.
On the post: European Information Security Advisory Says Mandating Encryption Backdoors Will Just Make Everything Worse
A few nits
Conclusion 1.
"While their [law enforcement] aims are legitimate, . . . ."
[Citation Needed]
One should no longer assume that the aims of law enforcement are legitimate. That ship has long since sailed.
Conclusion 3.
"given that criminals can develop their own encryption technologies"
Criminals don't need to develop their own encryption technologies. There are already several good algorithms, well known, published in textbooks, and that do not have a back door and are unlikely to have a trap door.
Conclusion 4.
"New technologies which generate once off encryption keys between end users are now being deployed. These keys are not stored centrally by the operator. These types of technologies make lawful interception in a timely manner very difficult. There is every reason to believe that more technology advances will emerge that will continue to erode the possibility of identifying or ecrypting electronic communications."
Oh, hey! I've got one! Let me try!
Carry two devices. A regular phone with a mobile plan, just like most people. This provides network access either via WiFi or cellular. A second device, which has no SIM, and is always in Airplane mode, is used to run the communications app which does the encryption. They bad guys [eg, NSA, etc] might hack your phone, but it is only being used to pass already encrypted communications from the other device which has the app you use to communicate, and little else.
On the post: James Clapper's Office To Finally Reveal NSA's 'Incidental Collection' Numbers
Re:
On the post: James Clapper's Office To Finally Reveal NSA's 'Incidental Collection' Numbers
Parallel Construction
Here is a handy translation guide for government speak:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161129/17411236152/key-congressional-staffers-who-helped-r ein-surveillance-overreach-1970s-ask-obama-to-pardon-snowden.shtml#c95
On the post: Ridiculous German Court Ruling Means Linking Online Is Now A Liability
Re: Abolish Copyright
On the post: Ridiculous German Court Ruling Means Linking Online Is Now A Liability
Re: Re: from the German people.
Then when I get home, I print out a copy of the day's news to use as bird cage liner.
On the post: Ridiculous German Court Ruling Means Linking Online Is Now A Liability
Re: Re: Re: They are fighting for their culture
Words printed in dead tree format have a superior magical quality of making you more literate.
It is not just old people reading trash rags. There are also younger people looking for important news like: "Space Aliens Ate My Baby!" and the like.
On the post: Ridiculous German Court Ruling Means Linking Online Is Now A Liability
Re: They are fighting for their culture
If a newspaper wants to publish or not publish its content online is the newspaper owner's own choice. Whether you, or whether I agree with the owner's choice doesn't really matter.
If online newspapers undermine dead tree newspapers, then that's progress. The telegraph undermined the pony express. The telephone undermined the telegraph. The automobile undermined the horse and buggy. Things change.
Fake News is unrelated whether news is online or in dead tree format. Every country probably has had for decades, tabloid news in dead tree format that is loaded with fake news. The real question is how gullible are people? The real lesson is determine what news sources you trust -- no matter what format they are published in.
On the post: Ridiculous German Court Ruling Means Linking Online Is Now A Liability
Linking is merely giving directions
Telling someone that the Crack House is two blocks south and to the left is also like linking.
Why should the first example above be okay (presumably it is okay?), but the second example would be a crime? Maybe someone would make the 2nd statement in order to aid you in avoiding the crack house.
On the post: Photographers And Filmmakers Call For Encryption To Be Built Into Cameras As Standard
Re:
On the post: The FCC Suggests Some Wishy Washy, Highly Unlikely Solutions To The Poorly-Secured Internet Of Things
Make the device manufacturer financially liable for damage
Put the financial liability for damage caused by hacked devices upon the manufacturers of the device. Yes, seriously.
Let me head off several replies before anyone even replies. I'm NOT suggesting any sort of government certification or licensing or registration of devices. Just simply that if your device is hacked, the hacking results in financial damage, then the manufacturer has liability for the damages caused.
Simply don't ship devices that are hackable. Impossible!, you say? If that is true, then don't make any IoT devices. If it is impossible to prevent them from being used for massive damage, then why should you be making and selling them at all? That's like saying it is impossible to make a toaster that won't burn your house down. If true, then why should you be making or selling any toasters.
If it is possible to secure the devices, then do so. You might start looking at a lot of basic things like:
* highly limit what internet ports your device uses
* no default passwords
* no back doors
* use digitally signed software updates to ensure they are from the manufacturer
* no insecure protocols
* minimize exposed functionality to minimize attack surface
And other ideas to lock down your device. Steps like this substantially reduce the odds that your device will be hacked, and that you will incur liability from damages caused.
The problem that this fixes is that now device makers have a financial incentive to secure and lock down their devices. It isn't impossible. Yes, it may cost some additional time and engineering in the design.
But just as I expect a toaster to not burn my house down, I expect IoT devices to not be instantly and trivially hackable.
On the post: Court Tells Nursing Home Company That Law Firm's Ads Targeting It Are Not A Form Of Trademark Infringement
Proper use of trademark
As for misuse, the way I used it is intended to communicate EXACTLY and PRECISELY what company and product I am expressing an opinion about.
As for tarnishing, what I stated was an opinion, it may differ from some people's, but is in agreement with many other people's opinion. Feel free to form and express your own opinion in agreement or disagreement.
On the post: Rep. Marsha Blackburn Says Internet Service Providers Have 'An Obligation' To Censor 'Fake News'
How it begins
On the post: This Is A Really Bad Idea: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube & Microsoft Agree To Block 'Terrorist' Content
This could never go wrong
Now all the government has to do is coerce or manipulate Company A into censoring things that should never be censored, and Company B, C, etc will all happily censor it without having any idea what they are censoring.
Similarly Hollywood could coerce or manipulate the censorship of content without need of the Digital Millennium Censorship Act (DMCA).
Next in line will be politicians with thin skin, but I'm being redundant. Local police and sheriffs with thin skin. Rich people who want to avoid the Streisand Effect.
Next will be corporations which want to censor competitors, or viewpoints which are against their profitability. Maybe corporations want to tax us for clean air and water because it costs actual money to avoid polluting the air and ware, and thus is unprofitable. People should have to pay. You don't think clean air grows on trees do you?
More and more people will get in line to add things to the magic censorship list of hashes.
What could possibly go wrong?
On the post: This Is A Really Bad Idea: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube & Microsoft Agree To Block 'Terrorist' Content
Re: Re: Microsoft???
Are these some upcoming unannounced products to which you have inside information?
On the post: This Is A Really Bad Idea: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube & Microsoft Agree To Block 'Terrorist' Content
Re: Re: Not surprised.
Let's not confuse bias with fake news, manufactured facts, distortions that stretch beyond any sane boundaries of 'spin', and just plain outright lies. Those things do not rise to and are undeserving of the word 'bias'.
On the post: This Is A Really Bad Idea: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube & Microsoft Agree To Block 'Terrorist' Content
Re: Re: Well the silver lining is...
Next >>