Re: The best way to keep tabs on them is to care for them.
I don't disagree with taking care of those with mental illness, but I wonder how it will benefit the government in any way, with regard to identifying 'dangerous persons'? I think that the medical professionals would adhere to their responsibility to doctor patient confidentiality, and withhold information the government might find useful (for their own agenda (aka propaganda), not for resolving the 'shooter' issue). The only indicator the government might find of value would be when someone gets committed to a psychiatric hospital, and that may or may not be too late.
That is, if the shooters are actually mentally ill and not behaving so for other reasons.
I want to say, and no one is surprised, but there are some who don't understand the the predicament public service unions have gotten the rest of us into via negotiating with the threat of withholding services.
I believe two things related to this. The first is that all employees should be treated fairly. The second is that all employees should be held accountable for their actions. These contracts show that the fairness part is far too far in the employees favor. This is made apparent, among other things, by the lack of accountability as shown by this and other articles.
As has been pointed out above, identifying a particular computer with IP addresses is overly simplistic. For example I have two routers, in series, and five computers connected to the inside one. For the moment, lets leave the fact of my VPN connection out of the equation, we'll assume I slip up and turn the VPN off, but still connect to the Internet. Now, which computer is guilty?
This kind of makes me wonder why the defense's haven't brought in network engineering experts to refute this nonsense.
If convicted, proving actual innocence down the road won't get you out of jail either. That could be corrected by the legislature, but to their shame, haven't.
The worst part is behavior like this obscures the prosecution's responsibility to prove one's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. By altering facts prior to the arrest, that then become a part of the evidence trail, those alterations gain believability beyond any reasonableness, and to my mind create doubt rather than represent any evidence of anything. Those alterations might be considered credible even if they have no factual relationship to the accused.
It occurs to me that there have been some instances where someone de-platformed from one social media site or another, who then sued. When they got to court, the company tells the judge that their TOS was violated, and the court agrees. Now, the executive branch is saying that violating the TOS is perfectly OK. How is that not a slap in the face to the judiciary? What will happen when this 'rule making' winds up in front of a judge?
Wait...and exponentially expound on that via 'Executive Orders' that may or may not actually order anything, in the concept of actual order. Political positioning is a different matter.
"But you cant force the rest of us to look at your hairy ass, smell your rank feet, or accept a completely unnecessary risk to the well-being of our kids."
But it's OK to spread disease that could have been controlled via the vaccination to the rest of society. I personally don't know enough about the vaccination issue to know whether they are bad or good but I do think there is a possibility that drug manufacturers push their products for the sake of profit rather than efficacy, but I don't think the question should be over ideology rather than societal good.
If and when some vaccines are proven to have significant deleterious effects then those individual vaccines should be called into question (rather than the entire process of vaccination), along with the proceedings the FDA used to approve them. And, in the end, if there are issues with certain vaccines, it should be the FDA that should be excoriated, along with the particular manufacturers, not the rest of society.
There is no 'good' form of government, despite your insistence upon naming one. As someone once said, something along the lines of 'the worst form of government is democracy, except for all the others'. So your point of blaming things on the form of government is ridiculous in that it isn't the government that formats society. It is the reverse, and while it may take some time, and possibly some outside influence (god help us, not the CIA kind) society will form the government they want despite the current regime.
But your point that the only way to control others is via a threat is not credible either. People react differently to threats. Some take a defensive posture. Some take a quiescent posture. Some pose, one or the other, in the proposition that the 'threat' will be dealt with later, and there are many ways to deal with that threat, and only a few of them involve guns.
So take your gun fetish to heart. It is your gun fetish, not anyone else's, though there may be some who feel your pain. The rest of us would prefer to deal with gun fetishes differently. And as I just said, there are many ways.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You see how stupid that sounds bro
It is likely that the supposed war HARPA is going to institute is on sociopaths, and like the war on drugs will fail miserably as the only method to diagnose sociopathy is via extended, competent psychiatric analysis. Sociopathy is already banned, as those who are found to be so are dealt with though various means. The problem lies in how to find those who are not already diagnosed.
Unlike the war on drugs, there is no current solution for that and HARPA is not going to find it in fitness trackers or social media. They may claim that they do, or did (depending upon the time frame of the claim) but proving that they do or did is a much different matter.
The war on drugs, unlike the search for sociopathy, has some potential solutions that have not been tried. Prohibition didn't work, and when prohibition was repealed some of the societal issues remained, such as drunk driving or reduced impulse control when drunk and committing acts of rage. We could try legalization along with control and rehabilitation and other counseling formats to help those who need and/or want it, but it would also need taxation that is targeted to ameliorating those societal issues that will come along with legalization. We didn't do that with liquor taxes, shame on us.
Of course then the problem will be with legislatures who see a pile of money not being used fast enough and they will want it for some other purpose. Think social security for a reference.
There are two ways to think about this. The first is anyone wearing a fitness tracker is loopy and needs close watching. The other is were warrants obtained to place the fitness trackers (aka GPS trackers) on the subset of suspects (we are all suspects, dontcha know?) that wear fitness trackers prior to the placement of those trackers?
My bet is that HARPA will go both way and only release results when it is in their best interest. The violations of anyone else's rights never happens, because they don't report those.
Oh, and then there is the concept of a fitness tracker being received as a gift and the gift giver then becomes a state actor, whether they know it or not.
"Objective: To influence the formation of public opinion on dealing with digital monopolists and the resulting indirect training of officials, politicians, judges and decision-makers to make judgments and decisions that ensure that the digital monopolists once more comply with the law."
While in a world of free speech they have a right to speak, but, when that influence is about 'training' officials, politicians, judges and decision-makers who are responsible to the public they serve, rather than 'copyright monopolists', any 'training' direct or indirect should be public and take place only after 'uninfluenced' public opinion has been applied. The issue is the 'copyright monopolists' want to influence in a vacuum, and without any dissenting opinions. That they want to influence public opinion is OK, but since they are trying to do so with upload filters, it means that public opinion is being suppressed, rather than influenced, which means the only public opinion that is allowed is public opinion that agrees with them. This is NOT OK.
That the 'training' will look more like canine training (good doggie, here's your cookie) is also to their shame. That the 'copyright monopolists' have the wherewithal to pass that cookie along, when the general public does not, makes for an unbalanced playing field. Kind of like how the current state of copyright came about, with influence (aka money) helping the 'deciders' to choose the influence over responsibilities to constituents.
It is probably more like many of the chosen few lack impulse control, otherwise they wouldn't be doing something because something must be done, even if that something isn't anything.
Politician has two accounts. One personal and one public. Both addresses become known. The thing to do is when someone uses the personal account for public reasons, they should be given the address to the public account and admonished to use it for public comments.
At the same time the politician should be able to discern when they themselves are making a public comment vs a private comment. This could be hard as when is what a politician does ever private? The answer could be, when in office, stop using the private account, unless with good friends or family, and then don't discuss politics or any public activities.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Aug 2019 @ 8:15am
A better use of TSA efforts
I am recommending that TSA agents search themselves as a primary task. They should line up in a configuration that resembles a Möbius strip at each installation and proceed searching until they get to the end of the line. They should keep copious notes about false positives and actual dangerous items found. The traveling public would be free to continue on their journeys until the TSA's primary task is complete.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Aug 2019 @ 7:55am
Carnack the Magnificent rides again
I am curious to know how David Nunes came about the assumption that two anonymous Twitter users lived in Virginia making that the proper venue for his lawsuit?
Or were there two options, Virginia, convenient and no anti SLAPP law vs California (where two parties to the lawsuit actually do reside) which has a robust anti SLAPP law and is inconvenient? Tough choice for the self indulgent.
On the post: White House Pushing Proposal That Would Subject Mentally Ill People To Increased Surveillance
Re: The best way to keep tabs on them is to care for them.
I don't disagree with taking care of those with mental illness, but I wonder how it will benefit the government in any way, with regard to identifying 'dangerous persons'? I think that the medical professionals would adhere to their responsibility to doctor patient confidentiality, and withhold information the government might find useful (for their own agenda (aka propaganda), not for resolving the 'shooter' issue). The only indicator the government might find of value would be when someone gets committed to a psychiatric hospital, and that may or may not be too late.
That is, if the shooters are actually mentally ill and not behaving so for other reasons.
On the post: Much Of The Assault On 'Big Tech' Is Being Driven By 'Big Telecom'
Nice Try, with less than half the information.
Hmm, where is the list of Telecom lobbying? Or, more to the point, which has the bigger lobby?
We can see which has the more effective lobby.
On the post: Much Of The Assault On 'Big Tech' Is Being Driven By 'Big Telecom'
They way of the way
Big Telcom: "Hey look, over there!"
Big Tech: "Who, us?"
Governments: (Checking campaign donation lists and upcoming lobbyist luncheon schedule) "Yeah, you."
On the post: Investigation Uncovers Mass Purging Of Phoenix Police Department Misconduct Records
Negotiation at gun point
I want to say, and no one is surprised, but there are some who don't understand the the predicament public service unions have gotten the rest of us into via negotiating with the threat of withholding services.
I believe two things related to this. The first is that all employees should be treated fairly. The second is that all employees should be held accountable for their actions. These contracts show that the fairness part is far too far in the employees favor. This is made apparent, among other things, by the lack of accountability as shown by this and other articles.
On the post: Appeals Court Says An IP Address Is 'Tantamount To A Computer's Name' While Handing The FBI Another NIT Win
That computer has a name...Guilty.
As has been pointed out above, identifying a particular computer with IP addresses is overly simplistic. For example I have two routers, in series, and five computers connected to the inside one. For the moment, lets leave the fact of my VPN connection out of the equation, we'll assume I slip up and turn the VPN off, but still connect to the Internet. Now, which computer is guilty?
This kind of makes me wonder why the defense's haven't brought in network engineering experts to refute this nonsense.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Umm.. NOPE
GiveMe1F*ckingBreak!
Fixed
On the post: Cops Digitally Erase Suspect's Facial Tattoos To Make Him Look More Like The Robbery Suspect Caught On Camera
Re:
If convicted, proving actual innocence down the road won't get you out of jail either. That could be corrected by the legislature, but to their shame, haven't.
The worst part is behavior like this obscures the prosecution's responsibility to prove one's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. By altering facts prior to the arrest, that then become a part of the evidence trail, those alterations gain believability beyond any reasonableness, and to my mind create doubt rather than represent any evidence of anything. Those alterations might be considered credible even if they have no factual relationship to the accused.
On the post: Federal Gov't Gives Customs Officers Permission To Break Social Media Platform Rules Forbidding Fake Accounts
Execu-branch, we don't need no stink'n rules
It occurs to me that there have been some instances where someone de-platformed from one social media site or another, who then sued. When they got to court, the company tells the judge that their TOS was violated, and the court agrees. Now, the executive branch is saying that violating the TOS is perfectly OK. How is that not a slap in the face to the judiciary? What will happen when this 'rule making' winds up in front of a judge?
On the post: Judge Orders White House To Restore Reporter's Press Pass It Illegally Removed
Re: Re:
And be OK with that!
Wait...and exponentially expound on that via 'Executive Orders' that may or may not actually order anything, in the concept of actual order. Political positioning is a different matter.
On the post: Pinterest's Way Of Dealing With Anti-Vax Nonsense And Scams Is Only Possible Because Of Section 230
Re: Freedom to choose
But it's OK to spread disease that could have been controlled via the vaccination to the rest of society. I personally don't know enough about the vaccination issue to know whether they are bad or good but I do think there is a possibility that drug manufacturers push their products for the sake of profit rather than efficacy, but I don't think the question should be over ideology rather than societal good.
If and when some vaccines are proven to have significant deleterious effects then those individual vaccines should be called into question (rather than the entire process of vaccination), along with the proceedings the FDA used to approve them. And, in the end, if there are issues with certain vaccines, it should be the FDA that should be excoriated, along with the particular manufacturers, not the rest of society.
On the post: White House Now Thinks Harvesting Fitness Tracker Data Could Stop The Next Mass Shooting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Faulty basis; assuming 'no guns' = 'no rules'
There is no 'good' form of government, despite your insistence upon naming one. As someone once said, something along the lines of 'the worst form of government is democracy, except for all the others'. So your point of blaming things on the form of government is ridiculous in that it isn't the government that formats society. It is the reverse, and while it may take some time, and possibly some outside influence (god help us, not the CIA kind) society will form the government they want despite the current regime.
But your point that the only way to control others is via a threat is not credible either. People react differently to threats. Some take a defensive posture. Some take a quiescent posture. Some pose, one or the other, in the proposition that the 'threat' will be dealt with later, and there are many ways to deal with that threat, and only a few of them involve guns.
So take your gun fetish to heart. It is your gun fetish, not anyone else's, though there may be some who feel your pain. The rest of us would prefer to deal with gun fetishes differently. And as I just said, there are many ways.
BTW, HARPA isn't one of them.
On the post: White House Now Thinks Harvesting Fitness Tracker Data Could Stop The Next Mass Shooting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You see how stupid that sounds bro
It is likely that the supposed war HARPA is going to institute is on sociopaths, and like the war on drugs will fail miserably as the only method to diagnose sociopathy is via extended, competent psychiatric analysis. Sociopathy is already banned, as those who are found to be so are dealt with though various means. The problem lies in how to find those who are not already diagnosed.
Unlike the war on drugs, there is no current solution for that and HARPA is not going to find it in fitness trackers or social media. They may claim that they do, or did (depending upon the time frame of the claim) but proving that they do or did is a much different matter.
The war on drugs, unlike the search for sociopathy, has some potential solutions that have not been tried. Prohibition didn't work, and when prohibition was repealed some of the societal issues remained, such as drunk driving or reduced impulse control when drunk and committing acts of rage. We could try legalization along with control and rehabilitation and other counseling formats to help those who need and/or want it, but it would also need taxation that is targeted to ameliorating those societal issues that will come along with legalization. We didn't do that with liquor taxes, shame on us.
Of course then the problem will be with legislatures who see a pile of money not being used fast enough and they will want it for some other purpose. Think social security for a reference.
On the post: White House Now Thinks Harvesting Fitness Tracker Data Could Stop The Next Mass Shooting
Re:
There are two ways to think about this. The first is anyone wearing a fitness tracker is loopy and needs close watching. The other is were warrants obtained to place the fitness trackers (aka GPS trackers) on the subset of suspects (we are all suspects, dontcha know?) that wear fitness trackers prior to the placement of those trackers?
My bet is that HARPA will go both way and only release results when it is in their best interest. The violations of anyone else's rights never happens, because they don't report those.
Oh, and then there is the concept of a fitness tracker being received as a gift and the gift giver then becomes a state actor, whether they know it or not.
On the post: Facebook And Twitter Hope To Fix California's Troubled Privacy Law With...Misleading Ads?
Re: Now Karl...
Channeling Karl: "Sorry boss, got my polar's crossed. I thought you said big tech was cruel not cool."
On the post: Getting Upload Filters Wasn't Enough: EU Copyright Industry Starts Stealth Campaign To Demonize Internet Companies Even More
We get to, you don't
While in a world of free speech they have a right to speak, but, when that influence is about 'training' officials, politicians, judges and decision-makers who are responsible to the public they serve, rather than 'copyright monopolists', any 'training' direct or indirect should be public and take place only after 'uninfluenced' public opinion has been applied. The issue is the 'copyright monopolists' want to influence in a vacuum, and without any dissenting opinions. That they want to influence public opinion is OK, but since they are trying to do so with upload filters, it means that public opinion is being suppressed, rather than influenced, which means the only public opinion that is allowed is public opinion that agrees with them. This is NOT OK.
That the 'training' will look more like canine training (good doggie, here's your cookie) is also to their shame. That the 'copyright monopolists' have the wherewithal to pass that cookie along, when the general public does not, makes for an unbalanced playing field. Kind of like how the current state of copyright came about, with influence (aka money) helping the 'deciders' to choose the influence over responsibilities to constituents.
On the post: Knight Institute Warns Rep. Ocasio-Cortez That She, Like Trump, Can't Block People On Twitter
Re: Re: Public and Personal
It is probably more like many of the chosen few lack impulse control, otherwise they wouldn't be doing something because something must be done, even if that something isn't anything.
On the post: Knight Institute Warns Rep. Ocasio-Cortez That She, Like Trump, Can't Block People On Twitter
Public and Personal
Politician has two accounts. One personal and one public. Both addresses become known. The thing to do is when someone uses the personal account for public reasons, they should be given the address to the public account and admonished to use it for public comments.
At the same time the politician should be able to discern when they themselves are making a public comment vs a private comment. This could be hard as when is what a politician does ever private? The answer could be, when in office, stop using the private account, unless with good friends or family, and then don't discuss politics or any public activities.
On the post: Judge Wants To Know Who's Behind Devin Nunes' Cow's And Mom's Twitter Account
Re: Re: Carnack the Magnificent rides again
Well, it appears I made more than one error. Still, it also appears that the inclusion of Liz Mair was merely to satisfy Nunes' agenda.
On the post: TSA's Expensive Scanners Can't Figure Out Afros Or Turbans, So Guess Who's Getting Searched More Often
A better use of TSA efforts
I am recommending that TSA agents search themselves as a primary task. They should line up in a configuration that resembles a Möbius strip at each installation and proceed searching until they get to the end of the line. They should keep copious notes about false positives and actual dangerous items found. The traveling public would be free to continue on their journeys until the TSA's primary task is complete.
On the post: Judge Wants To Know Who's Behind Devin Nunes' Cow's And Mom's Twitter Account
Carnack the Magnificent rides again
I am curious to know how David Nunes came about the assumption that two anonymous Twitter users lived in Virginia making that the proper venue for his lawsuit?
Or were there two options, Virginia, convenient and no anti SLAPP law vs California (where two parties to the lawsuit actually do reside) which has a robust anti SLAPP law and is inconvenient? Tough choice for the self indulgent.
Next >>