I swear, our human-rights oriented western governments are like a bunch of binge drunks let run loose in a liquor store. They take an oath to get off the hooch, but turn them loose in the store and watch what happens...
The so-called "Ferguson Effect" is merely a political argument to silence critics of the police. Data is not needed. In fact, data is probably counterproductive; it might undercut the argument.
Imagine "Abu" has raised the suspicions of an intelligence service (IS). Paranoia flares, there is no innocence: once suspicious, always.
Finding no confirmation for its suspicions, the IS can, of course, hold closer surveillance on Abu in the future.
But one cannot go back and add surveillance in the past. Since the IS cannot, by its own lights, be wrong in its suspicions of Abu, paranoia concludes that past intelligence opportunities must have been missed. If only there had been total surveillance on Abu in the past.
But they didn't know Abu needed to be watched until suspicion flared: they never know anyone needs watched until suspicion flares. This in turn leads to the reasoning that everyone must be under total surveillance, for it is only by this means that the IS can ensure they will have all necessary surveillance on all future suspects.
Perhaps this sounds paranoid or stupid. But an IS is paranoid by definition, made stupid by its paranoia...and this is your answer: No argument whatsoever, will satisfy an IS of a need for less than total surveillance.
Well, you've got to understand our surveillance priorities in order to have a clear view of this.
Priority for terrorists: Meh. The group that leaked doesn't exist anymore, it was disbanded for protocol violations. Plus, no foreign terrorist is ever going to sue NSA in court for surveillance; foreigners have no standing. So it's no big deal if we prove the worth of our surveillance by once in a while dropping names.
On the other hand, revelations about surveillance of U.S. citizens is a priority concern. First off the bat, we have all these radical elements in the citizen population; especially the (eek) commies...oops, I mean liberals. They must be watched. The problem is that citizens have standing to sue: if they find out they're being watched, OMG! Well, they just can't find out, that's it.
Terrorists, who cares about leaks, leaks are good for our image; U. S. citizens, talk about us watching them and we'll hang you from the yardarm...TRAITOR!
The Balkanization of the web continues with corporations asserting their entitlement to control their user base and its proceeds. That appears to me to be the real reason for blocking Tsu and Google+, because by directing people to those sites, users are "stealing" from Facebook.
I think someone should be asking another question: "Where does all this money go?"
I mean, suppose University of California wins this argument and truly makes billions on this technology: where would the money go? Shouldn't the university be teaching students for free on that money?
Or are they spending the NCAA earnings and all their patent royalties on their solid platinum stadium? Bonuses for the president?
Law enforcement is all disappointed now. It's hard for them to understand why anything would constitute a search; much less their proctoscope.
Oh, wait, I forgot: law enforcement is pretty sure having someone looking through their lockers or desk drawers is a search. I guess it just depends on whose space is being invaded: them or all us dastardly criminals.
Too bad the various DOJ's can't argue this effectively when defending the average citizen's Rights. Sadly, they only pull out their best when the department or an official/officer will be embarrassed.
No, no Raphael will be punished; the best she can hope for is loss of home, job, career, and income--assuming they drop the case--but she should probably brace for worse. See, she doesn't matter; not as a matter of rank.
Unlike Petraeus and Clinton: they're too important to be punished because they do matter.
At least, in our current broken legal system: where lower caste means higher penalties.
"I have no problem with using the law to go after people who use drones for illegal purposes in some way, but a registration-first system seems to assume that many uses will be illegal, and if they aren't now, it makes it much easier to criminalize lots of different uses."
We know all the information on the USTR site is going to be propaganda, and that they're not going to be answering "any questions" in substance, because they're utterly determined that no one know what is really in the devil of the TPP details, until the ink is dry on those doomsday signatures.
Further, we know that any professor who comes up with a serious analysis arguing against TPP is going to be round-filed so fast his paper will catch fire from the friction, saving them the trouble of tossing in a match. Why it's right there in the letter: "If you are interested to [develop materials] that highlight the benefits of [TPP]."
So I guess they're asking the professors to do propaganda-in-propaganda-out.
No discussion of benefits to the professor, though: it's so gauche to put such details in writing.
If AT&T gave a suggestion to anyone else, it would expect major$ in return. Therefore, it expects that if a customer provides a suggestion, the customer will be demanding major$ in return (so forget it, we'll come up with our own ideas).
That's what happens when you expect others to mirror your own endlessly greedy behavior.
I don't see anything there that says his intent is to curtail those "evils".
Based on his arguments above, I would guess he is a leading proponent of using those tools for the advancement of the interests of incumbent corporations. Specifically, using them to "curtail opportunities", "slow economic progress" and "delay innovation" on the part of upstart corporations such as, for example, Uber.
It shouldn't be a surprise: someone must be studying how to use these things to suppress competition.
On the post: France Responds To Paris Attacks By Rushing Through Internet Censorship Law
Binge time
I swear, our human-rights oriented western governments are like a bunch of binge drunks let run loose in a liquor store. They take an oath to get off the hooch, but turn them loose in the store and watch what happens...
On the post: Loretta Lynch Essentially Says The Ferguson Effect Is Bullshit
Re: Pedantically,
On the post: Is There Any Evidence In The World That Would Convince Intelligence Community That More Surveillance Isn't The Answer?
No argument whatsoever
Finding no confirmation for its suspicions, the IS can, of course, hold closer surveillance on Abu in the future.
But one cannot go back and add surveillance in the past. Since the IS cannot, by its own lights, be wrong in its suspicions of Abu, paranoia concludes that past intelligence opportunities must have been missed. If only there had been total surveillance on Abu in the past.
But they didn't know Abu needed to be watched until suspicion flared: they never know anyone needs watched until suspicion flares. This in turn leads to the reasoning that everyone must be under total surveillance, for it is only by this means that the IS can ensure they will have all necessary surveillance on all future suspects.
Perhaps this sounds paranoid or stupid. But an IS is paranoid by definition, made stupid by its paranoia...and this is your answer: No argument whatsoever, will satisfy an IS of a need for less than total surveillance.
On the post: US Officials Have No Problem Leaking Classified Surveillance Information... As Long As It Fits Their Narrative
Prioritizing secrecy
Priority for terrorists: Meh. The group that leaked doesn't exist anymore, it was disbanded for protocol violations. Plus, no foreign terrorist is ever going to sue NSA in court for surveillance; foreigners have no standing. So it's no big deal if we prove the worth of our surveillance by once in a while dropping names.
On the other hand, revelations about surveillance of U.S. citizens is a priority concern. First off the bat, we have all these radical elements in the citizen population; especially the (eek) commies...oops, I mean liberals. They must be watched. The problem is that citizens have standing to sue: if they find out they're being watched, OMG! Well, they just can't find out, that's it.
Terrorists, who cares about leaks, leaks are good for our image; U. S. citizens, talk about us watching them and we'll hang you from the yardarm...TRAITOR!
On the post: Facebook Bans Tsu Links Entirely, Choosing Control Over User Empowerment
Theft of ad revenue
On the post: Will Molecular Biology's Most Important Discovery In Years Be Ruined By Patents?
A real question
I mean, suppose University of California wins this argument and truly makes billions on this technology: where would the money go? Shouldn't the university be teaching students for free on that money?
Or are they spending the NCAA earnings and all their patent royalties on their solid platinum stadium? Bonuses for the president?
On the post: NYPD Wants $42,000 To Turn Over Documents Related To Discharges Of Officers' Firearms
The answer
On the post: Court Punishes Bogus Removal Of Juror Who Questioned Police Corruption By... Removing Troublesome Juror
On the post: Democrats Screw Over Larry Lessig To Keep Him Out Of The Debates; Forces Lessig To Drop His Campaign
Wing Nuts R Us
On the post: Court: When Aerial Surveillance Resembles An 'Invasion,' It Becomes An Illegal Search
Law enforcement and searches
Oh, wait, I forgot: law enforcement is pretty sure having someone looking through their lockers or desk drawers is a search. I guess it just depends on whose space is being invaded: them or all us dastardly criminals.
On the post: District Attorney Agrees With His Office That Potentially Embarrassing Recordings Of Him Should Not Be Released
Isn't it funny...
On the post: DOJ On The Verge Of Dropping Third Straight Espionage Prosecution
It's a matter of Rank
Unlike Petraeus and Clinton: they're too important to be punished because they do matter.
At least, in our current broken legal system: where lower caste means higher penalties.
On the post: USTR Fishing For Academics To Astroturf In Favor Of TPP
Re: Re: Propaganda-in-propaganda-out
On the post: Reports: Department Of Transportation To Require All Drones Be Registered
They're banning our ... drones
On the post: USTR Fishing For Academics To Astroturf In Favor Of TPP
Propaganda-in-propaganda-out
Further, we know that any professor who comes up with a serious analysis arguing against TPP is going to be round-filed so fast his paper will catch fire from the friction, saving them the trouble of tossing in a match. Why it's right there in the letter: "If you are interested to [develop materials] that highlight the benefits of [TPP]."
So I guess they're asking the professors to do propaganda-in-propaganda-out.
No discussion of benefits to the professor, though: it's so gauche to put such details in writing.
On the post: AT&T Lawyers Want You To Know That AT&T's CEO Will Never Listen To Customer Suggestions
Mirroring Greed
If AT&T gave a suggestion to anyone else, it would expect major$ in return. Therefore, it expects that if a customer provides a suggestion, the customer will be demanding major$ in return (so forget it, we'll come up with our own ideas).
That's what happens when you expect others to mirror your own endlessly greedy behavior.
On the post: Bobby Jindal Announces Violent Games/Movies To Blame For All Those Mass Shootings
Typical Republican...
On the post: Former NSA Directors Coming Out Strongly *Against* Backdooring Encryption
The Fox and the Grapes
On the post: Patent Owner Insists 'Integers' Do Not Include The Number One
Number One is not an integer
On the post: Stanford Professor Insists Consumers Are Helped By Patent Trolls
Someone must be studying it
Based on his arguments above, I would guess he is a leading proponent of using those tools for the advancement of the interests of incumbent corporations. Specifically, using them to "curtail opportunities", "slow economic progress" and "delay innovation" on the part of upstart corporations such as, for example, Uber.
It shouldn't be a surprise: someone must be studying how to use these things to suppress competition.
Next >>