They want to make as big and public a stink about this as they can, as often and for as long as they can, to try to shift the public view towards the idea that this is a big problem. The end goal is backdoor (or something that achieves that effect) all communications.
Why do they want to do that? Who knows? I can only think of one reason: they want power.
I don't really see anybody crucifying him. People are complaining about a bad thing his campaign is doing. I'm sure that you're right -- this is the sort of detail that candidates don't personally sign off on in campaigns of this scale.
Nonetheless, it needs to be called out. As a bonus, how Sanders responds to this will tell us all something about his style.
The problem with cell phones isn't that the phone company knows where the phone is. That is, as you say, unavoidable, and you're right -- the only way to stop it is to not carry a phone. The real problem is the ease of access to that information by entities who are not the phone company, and that is something that can be fixed.
"That requires that people cam either get a fixed IP address for their home connection, or use a dynamic DNS services to allow use of a private server"
Not as much as you might think. While it's true that your dynamic IP address can change, in practice it rarely actually does. And it almost never changes unless you disconnect and reconnect.
I know a lot of people who run an SSH server from their home machines for remote access, but don't have a dedicated IP and don't use DDNS services.
"if using windows it is a right pain to set up to use SSH for a secure connection to a home server."
This is just not true. Perhaps it used to be years ago, but setting this up on Windows now is pretty simple. It takes about 5 minutes.
The flaw being discussed here is one problem with them. However, there are (at least) two additional problems that are at least as bad:
1. They eliminate transparency. It's impossible to know where the link goes without clicking on it. This is 100% unacceptable and makes it trivially easy to trick people into clicking malicious links.
2. They unnecessarily involve a third party who now has access to which IP addresses are requesting which links.
Personally, I never follow links that go through a shortener and I urge others to follow the same practice.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will they take the high road or not?
"An opinion unsustainable by anyone who has actually taken the trouble to find out about either religion."
Nice job assuming that I haven't done this. Here's a surprise: I actually have. And a lot of people who have studied these things all their lives agree with me -- so your claim that anyone who knows what they're talking about automatically agrees with you is wrong on its face.
As to the rest of your comment, it doesn't really address the issue (or you haven't explained how it does), so there's little point in addressing it. Just to clarify, the issues you've raised are caused by the merging of church and state. Every time that has happened in history (regardless of the religion involved), we have seen this sort of behavior. Yes, it's a terrible thing. No, it's not something that is any more endemic to Islam than it is to any other religion.
I will address one little thing. You apparently assume that I think all religion is the same. This is something I never asserted, nor believe.
"Suppose someone wanted to start a national cell phone carrier whose foundational business model was that they not going to divulge any data to anyone. "
That's not even close to legally possible in the US. It wouldn't even be possible to try to achieve it by intentionally not keeping records: current law requires a certain amount of recordkeeping just for law enforcement purposes.
You do realize that the IRS isn't really the one doing the "stealing", right? It's just an enforcement arm of Congress, and only "steals" what Congress tells them to.
To be honest, for most of my taxpaying life I have thought that having to compute my own taxes was nothing but adding insult to injury. The IRS already has the data they need, so why can't they throw me this bone?
"that law does not protect parody in a negative sense"
I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you mean that parody that is mean to the subject is not protected speech, then you are incorrect.
"Considering what Sanders is up against in this election, even if he is silencing this 1 person [...]"
It seems like you're arguing that he is such a good person and is fighting such a good fight that he has earned the right to abuse the law? I don't think even Bernie Sanders himself would agree with that.
I've been tracking my own IP Geolocation ever since it became possible, just for fun. Over many years and locations, both urban and rural, it has never once been right. Never.
The closest it came was one time when it decided I was 20 miles away from my actual location.
I stopped being quite so enthralled with his writing starting with the Baroque Cycle, but I can't think of a book before that time that wasn't pure wonderfulness.
I can't decide if I consider Diamond Age or Snow Crash to be his masterpiece, but Cryptonimcon isn't far behind. And the Big U, but for radically different reasons.
Re: Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
I honestly can't follow what you're trying to say here.
In the context of your offering, what market are you talking about opening up? What barriers are you knocking down? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the whole idea looks like it's a method of gaming the system and imposing barriers.
The argument that I'm hearing in favor of it is that the entity doing the gaming shouldn't be the carrier. As far as that goes, yes, if the system is to be gamed then I'd rather that it not be the major telecoms doing it.
But really, I'd much prefer that the system be fair, instead.
On the post: How Bad Are Geolocation Tools? Really, Really Bad
Re: Re: Fun fact
On the post: Apple Responds To DOJ's Attempt To Get Into Drug Dealer's Phone: Why You So Dishonest?
Re: Again, what is it they think they will find?
Why do they want to do that? Who knows? I can only think of one reason: they want power.
On the post: Bernie Sanders' Campaign Joins Too Many Other Presidential Campaigns In Abusing Trademark Law
Re:
Nonetheless, it needs to be called out. As a bonus, how Sanders responds to this will tell us all something about his style.
On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Cryptonomicon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: an annual read
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says Cell Site Location Data Just A Business Record; No Warrants Required
Re: Re: Re: You would think...
On the post: Report Exposes Flaws In Link Shorteners That Reveal Sensitive Info About Users And Track Their Offline Movements
Re: Re: Lengthening?
Not as much as you might think. While it's true that your dynamic IP address can change, in practice it rarely actually does. And it almost never changes unless you disconnect and reconnect.
I know a lot of people who run an SSH server from their home machines for remote access, but don't have a dedicated IP and don't use DDNS services.
"if using windows it is a right pain to set up to use SSH for a secure connection to a home server."
This is just not true. Perhaps it used to be years ago, but setting this up on Windows now is pretty simple. It takes about 5 minutes.
On the post: Report Exposes Flaws In Link Shorteners That Reveal Sensitive Info About Users And Track Their Offline Movements
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lengthening?
On the post: Report Exposes Flaws In Link Shorteners That Reveal Sensitive Info About Users And Track Their Offline Movements
Link shorteners are a terrible idea
1. They eliminate transparency. It's impossible to know where the link goes without clicking on it. This is 100% unacceptable and makes it trivially easy to trick people into clicking malicious links.
2. They unnecessarily involve a third party who now has access to which IP addresses are requesting which links.
Personally, I never follow links that go through a shortener and I urge others to follow the same practice.
On the post: Comedian Could Face 3 Years In German (Not Turkish!) Jail For Mocking Notoriously Thin-Skinned Turkish President
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will they take the high road or not?
Nice job assuming that I haven't done this. Here's a surprise: I actually have. And a lot of people who have studied these things all their lives agree with me -- so your claim that anyone who knows what they're talking about automatically agrees with you is wrong on its face.
As to the rest of your comment, it doesn't really address the issue (or you haven't explained how it does), so there's little point in addressing it. Just to clarify, the issues you've raised are caused by the merging of church and state. Every time that has happened in history (regardless of the religion involved), we have seen this sort of behavior. Yes, it's a terrible thing. No, it's not something that is any more endemic to Islam than it is to any other religion.
I will address one little thing. You apparently assume that I think all religion is the same. This is something I never asserted, nor believe.
On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Cryptonomicon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: an annual read
On the post: Daily Deal: Agile Training for Project Managers
The best way
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says Cell Site Location Data Just A Business Record; No Warrants Required
Re:
That's not even close to legally possible in the US. It wouldn't even be possible to try to achieve it by intentionally not keeping records: current law requires a certain amount of recordkeeping just for law enforcement purposes.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Introduces Bill To Make Tax Season Return-Free
Re: Let's this rule, the IRS shall not steal.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Introduces Bill To Make Tax Season Return-Free
I'd do it
On the post: Bernie Sanders' Campaign Joins Too Many Other Presidential Campaigns In Abusing Trademark Law
Re:
This whole "ends justify the means" argument is despicable. It's the exact sort of mindset that is characteristic of the political establishment.
On the post: Bernie Sanders' Campaign Joins Too Many Other Presidential Campaigns In Abusing Trademark Law
Re:
I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you mean that parody that is mean to the subject is not protected speech, then you are incorrect.
"Considering what Sanders is up against in this election, even if he is silencing this 1 person [...]"
It seems like you're arguing that he is such a good person and is fighting such a good fight that he has earned the right to abuse the law? I don't think even Bernie Sanders himself would agree with that.
On the post: How Bad Are Geolocation Tools? Really, Really Bad
I've been checking my own location
The closest it came was one time when it decided I was 20 miles away from my actual location.
On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Cryptonomicon
Re: Re: Re: an annual read
I can't decide if I consider Diamond Age or Snow Crash to be his masterpiece, but Cryptonimcon isn't far behind. And the Big U, but for radically different reasons.
On the post: Wireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero Rating
Re: Re: Re: Toll Free / Zero Rated Data Apps = Likely 1st Amendment Free Speech
In the context of your offering, what market are you talking about opening up? What barriers are you knocking down? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the whole idea looks like it's a method of gaming the system and imposing barriers.
The argument that I'm hearing in favor of it is that the entity doing the gaming shouldn't be the carrier. As far as that goes, yes, if the system is to be gamed then I'd rather that it not be the major telecoms doing it.
But really, I'd much prefer that the system be fair, instead.
On the post: White House Threatens To Veto Bill Attempting To Gut Net Neutrality, Defang FCC
Re: What the hell are you all on about!!!
Next >>