They can and still do wiretap. Although now it means hoovering everyone's communications in the neighborhood of the investigation for "limited" times, like 90 days, to pretty much be extended on demand.
_"FWIW, I don't think all communications should be captured, just that when presented with a legal court order, messaging operators would start collecting data for a limited time on that account."_
This is already done. Asking parties to set up systems they don't have, with broken encryption and storage for whatever, is an entirely different thing.
Look, the thing is, you catch criminals by _behavior_. If you don't have the manpower to actually investigate anything, you either need more manpower, or more likely, stop wasting time on completely idiotic things and focus your sills on what is important. Never mind that bad actors still, with all this encryption "debate" going on for years, use completely unencrypted means of communication. The whole encryption thing is a bogeyman to begin with.
I admire that you want warrants and completely targeted surveillance, but the fact is, this is how it actually works, encryption or no. And if one already knows their target, surveil them one of the ten million other ways. Or, you know, crack the encryption on the device or captured communications yourself.
Wiretap laws and search warrants used to be limited, at leas sometimes, where the system was actually following the law. But that is a wide-open free for all these days. Completely ridiculous and overbroad warrants are rubberstamped all the time.
But that is all irrelevant, as there should be no back door (including no extra key), full stop.
And yes, i think most people would love it if law enforcement had its powers at all limited from rampant abuse in some way. That idea is a winner.
Very true, but she is old news. Clinton was awful with a lot of things. Or is it you imagine that anyone with the slightest bit of dislike for Trump is a Clinton supporter? (Bcs omg that is so funny.)
Maybe they should have thought about this well more than 20 years ago while they were busy putting each other out of business or buying each other up.
I suppose they should stop telling you to go to their twitter and fb accounts also, because in light of this and similar actions and complaints, that is just warped. And put up a simply robots.txt for search engines.
Maybe if some of these systems let them monetize their accounts like YouTube does. @@ I know that won't make anyone perfectly happy, since others share these things, but if an org has its own presence, a snipclipsharepost will more likely point there. (Search engines already work this way entirely.)
Really stupid is the fact that people from all over will go to read news from completely outside their area. News which would never have been shared nationally or globally before. And if you have a decent site with good writing (or other production values), they will keep returning directly to the site. To read news that barely concerns them at all. Especially if they don't ruin old content and links for it. (It's hilarious how newspapers and TV news could keep morgues of shit for a hundred years but leaving it up on some disk space in a server is just too much.)
Obviously some of the news organizations get this, at least a little. But when most of that industry spent decades getting dumber and less news-orientated on purpose, it isn't a surprise they find or invent conflicts when everything about their models was wrong all along, but their audience was more or less captive.
I doubt very many trademarks of that variety are ever original. But he holds it, for use on implements of drinking. Kind of weird, but it seems like a clean cease and desist and so far not an effort to lock up culture. I suppose one may see in the future. I generally find it troubling that words may be locked up themselves, absent unique design. (Even coca-cola is weird, not that anyone else would use it, but that is like getting a mark locking up lemon-lime. Or heroin-honey.)
It's nice that it isn't super dangerous information, and that you are pretty sure only the researcher discovered the unsecured data. This time. The point is that this is a symptom of systemic poor security with corporate America in general. Was the secret program and the data that insecure when Verizon was busily feeding the government all of the traffic it handled before that little scheme was retroactively made "legal"?
It's great if no one was hurt, but Verizon has a long way to go before it is believed in regards to anything. I'm not aware of a single good corporate behavior it possesses.
(Note that another thing implied to be curbing the risk here is these are all wireline users, who are lucky if they have service with some quality at any given moment, if the lines aren't simply left to die, or sold off. I suppose that can be mitigating after some fashion.)
Are they quite sure it has to be local? I understand Spain has some very good furniture. Perhaps a demonstration? _Cardinal Fang! Fetch the comfy chair!_
I think it was discussed rather entirely as a strategy. Call it propaganda if it seems like it makes a point with the baggage that word has, but it doesn't really fit. A behavior is not propaganda. Might the move be partially cynical and/or manipulative? I would imagine _someone_ on that end wants it for those reasons, given the number of people involved. But the thing is, you get better behavior however you can, and reinforce it. But honestly, I can't ascribe purely or mostly cynical motives to this. The EU seems to have a decent positive streak that shows up here and there.
Most all "trade" deals are messed up, full stop. Of course the TTIP was a pantload, and plenty of EU MEPs and other pols pointed it out. Which ones are "the EU", and which ones aren't?
There is an old science fiction story about exactly this. They raise children completely alone with tools for creativity and no exposure to the outside world.
You'd have some pretty fsckd-up human beings as a result of this, but i think the fsckd-up human beings who make demands along these lines would be just fine with this, yeah? Pretty sure the members of Marvin Gaye's estate would have loved it if he had been raised like that.
The other thing about contracts... well, er, given recording companies demand the musicians they sign list their influences for their purposes, i am pretty sure any future hungry lawyer would be on the subpoena train demanding those contracts and relevant records, no matter what artists are made to claim in public.
Competition existing in certain market areas affects only those market areas, which are very little of the total market. The illustration is accurate, even if not exactly perfect in all edge cases.
That was fun. Throw the "offended" card somewhere that super-weak "offense" framing tool doesn't even have the slightest relevance.
The goalpost moving and deflection is a riot, too.
This is very simple: To stop doing business with companies in opposition to net neutrality means ditching one's ISP - the very central opponents of NN, with zero options to switch to one that supports NN (and zero options whatsoever for a significant number of people). So the bizarre apologetic that totally ignores this (and in this conversation no less) followed by further ridiculous and distracting arguments, is a rather poor game. Why not just acknowledge that 1) this is exactly what it means, and 2) it is a generally ridiculous and impossible proposal. Some people can and will (and have) done this, and other things, like quitting driving their own car, or moving off the grid. However, it is literally impossible for enough people to make a difference to stop consuming x until companies change.
As for you, you can always have your cake and it it too. Imaginary, pointless cakes make this possible.
For what reason should any such warrant ever be secret, instead of served to the target at the same time, more or less, it is served to the provider? One would never need concern themselves with third-party challenges if these things were properly served in the first place. I find it unreasonable on it's face that this is how warrants are commonly served. It seems the sort of thing one should do against a larger criminal enterprise, but corporations and criminal groups have lawyers and money.
On the post: Aussie Prime Minister Says The Laws Of Math Don't Apply In Australia When It Comes To Encryption
Re: Re:
On the post: Aussie Prime Minister Says The Laws Of Math Don't Apply In Australia When It Comes To Encryption
Re: Re: No. Just no.
_"FWIW, I don't think all communications should be captured, just that when presented with a legal court order, messaging operators would start collecting data for a limited time on that account."_
This is already done. Asking parties to set up systems they don't have, with broken encryption and storage for whatever, is an entirely different thing.
Look, the thing is, you catch criminals by _behavior_. If you don't have the manpower to actually investigate anything, you either need more manpower, or more likely, stop wasting time on completely idiotic things and focus your sills on what is important. Never mind that bad actors still, with all this encryption "debate" going on for years, use completely unencrypted means of communication. The whole encryption thing is a bogeyman to begin with.
I admire that you want warrants and completely targeted surveillance, but the fact is, this is how it actually works, encryption or no. And if one already knows their target, surveil them one of the ten million other ways. Or, you know, crack the encryption on the device or captured communications yourself.
On the post: Aussie Prime Minister Says The Laws Of Math Don't Apply In Australia When It Comes To Encryption
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that is all irrelevant, as there should be no back door (including no extra key), full stop.
And yes, i think most people would love it if law enforcement had its powers at all limited from rampant abuse in some way. That idea is a winner.
On the post: Aussie Prime Minister Says The Laws Of Math Don't Apply In Australia When It Comes To Encryption
Re:
On the post: Aussie Prime Minister Says The Laws Of Math Don't Apply In Australia When It Comes To Encryption
Re: Re: Hellow Australia!
On the post: Aussie Prime Minister Says The Laws Of Math Don't Apply In Australia When It Comes To Encryption
Re:
On the post: All Out Of Ideas, Legacy News Providers Ask US Gov't For The Right To Collude Against Google & Facebook
Maybe they should have thought about this well more than 20 years ago while they were busy putting each other out of business or buying each other up.
I suppose they should stop telling you to go to their twitter and fb accounts also, because in light of this and similar actions and complaints, that is just warped. And put up a simply robots.txt for search engines.
Maybe if some of these systems let them monetize their accounts like YouTube does. @@ I know that won't make anyone perfectly happy, since others share these things, but if an org has its own presence, a snipclipsharepost will more likely point there. (Search engines already work this way entirely.)
Really stupid is the fact that people from all over will go to read news from completely outside their area. News which would never have been shared nationally or globally before. And if you have a decent site with good writing (or other production values), they will keep returning directly to the site. To read news that barely concerns them at all. Especially if they don't ruin old content and links for it. (It's hilarious how newspapers and TV news could keep morgues of shit for a hundred years but leaving it up on some disk space in a server is just too much.)
Obviously some of the news organizations get this, at least a little. But when most of that industry spent decades getting dumber and less news-orientated on purpose, it isn't a surprise they find or invent conflicts when everything about their models was wrong all along, but their audience was more or less captive.
On the post: The War On Dogs Continues: Cop Shoots Two Non-Threatening Dogs During Burglar Alarm Call
On the post: Desk Jockeying: FBI Puts Out The Call For 'Cyber Security Furniture'
Re: Suggestion
On the post: Canadian Rapper Sends Rap Video Cease & Desist Letter To Coca Cola For 'Jacking' His Catchphrase
Re: I been know to rip around
On the post: Private Data Of 6 Million Verizon Users Left Openly Accessible On The Internet
Re:
It's great if no one was hurt, but Verizon has a long way to go before it is believed in regards to anything. I'm not aware of a single good corporate behavior it possesses.
(Note that another thing implied to be curbing the risk here is these are all wireline users, who are lucky if they have service with some quality at any given moment, if the lines aren't simply left to die, or sold off. I suppose that can be mitigating after some fashion.)
On the post: Desk Jockeying: FBI Puts Out The Call For 'Cyber Security Furniture'
On the post: Private Data Of 6 Million Verizon Users Left Openly Accessible On The Internet
On the post: EU's Brexit Strategy Shows How Aggressive Transparency Can Be Used To Gain The Upper Hand In Negotiations
Re:
Most all "trade" deals are messed up, full stop. Of course the TTIP was a pantload, and plenty of EU MEPs and other pols pointed it out. Which ones are "the EU", and which ones aren't?
On the post: Copyright Madness: Blurred Lines Mess Means Artists Now Afraid To Name Their Inspirations
Re: Mission... accomplished?
You'd have some pretty fsckd-up human beings as a result of this, but i think the fsckd-up human beings who make demands along these lines would be just fine with this, yeah? Pretty sure the members of Marvin Gaye's estate would have loved it if he had been raised like that.
The other thing about contracts... well, er, given recording companies demand the musicians they sign list their influences for their purposes, i am pretty sure any future hungry lawyer would be on the subpoena train demanding those contracts and relevant records, no matter what artists are made to claim in public.
On the post: Court Won't Let Patent Troll Dismiss Its Way Out Of A Lawsuit, Orders It To Pay Legal Fees
Re: Re:
On the post: If You Want To Protect The Internet, Look To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Calling BS
On the post: If You Want To Protect The Internet, Look To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The goalpost moving and deflection is a riot, too.
This is very simple: To stop doing business with companies in opposition to net neutrality means ditching one's ISP - the very central opponents of NN, with zero options to switch to one that supports NN (and zero options whatsoever for a significant number of people). So the bizarre apologetic that totally ignores this (and in this conversation no less) followed by further ridiculous and distracting arguments, is a rather poor game. Why not just acknowledge that 1) this is exactly what it means, and 2) it is a generally ridiculous and impossible proposal. Some people can and will (and have) done this, and other things, like quitting driving their own car, or moving off the grid. However, it is literally impossible for enough people to make a difference to stop consuming x until companies change.
As for you, you can always have your cake and it it too. Imaginary, pointless cakes make this possible.
On the post: Facebook Back In Court Challenging More Law Enforcement Gag Orders
On the post: AT&T Pretends To Love Net Neutrality, Joins Tomorrow's Protest With A Straight Face
Next >>