What part of Title II standing would kick the FTC to the curb? Heck, the FTC took action against AT&T (and are being sued for it) while Title II was in effect.
The "offenses of the past" are not "supposed," they are well-documented abuses of the monopoly and near-monopoly power that ISPs have committed.
As this article and many others have iterated, the "overview of the FTC" is not stringent. There is already a legal question about whether the FTC will have the legal basis to deal with ISPs at all. Moreover, the FTC is already overburdened and must choose its battles. The ISPs are counting on that.
Finally, NN doesn't "lock the current system in" in any way. It's a set of rules of what ISPs are not allowed to do, not a set of rules about what ISPs must do. If we, the public, get our heads out of our behinds and pressure our representatives to remove the state regulations that bar local competition, NN will have no impact on new ISP businesses, save to prevent them from crafting NN-violating policies themselves.
I applaud your attempt to appear reasonable, but you read like an industry shill. Go find some other venue; TD readers are too well-informed to fall prey to this kind of rhetoric.
No, I think you misunderstand. Trump is evil, in that he is completely selfish (the root of all evil, IMHO). However, he is also dumb. He is convinced of several conspiracy-theory notions, including that he and/or his staff were spied upon during his Presidential campaign. That's what he is referencing here. He saw the Fox News piece, thought to himself, "See? I was right, they were spying on me!" and spat out this tweet.
He had no idea it might impact ongoing litigation, litigation against his own DOJ. It's possible that he wouldn't care even if he did know. All Trump cares about is Trump; his DOJ can go hang if they don't support him and his deranged theories.
I can confirm everything that Rich has written. I'm only one of those "middling mail admins" he writes about, but I know enough to know that he's exactly correct. "Attribution is hard" is one of the 3 word sets that form the foundation of why spam is such a problem. "Email is free" is another one.
Nice false equivalency, SirWired, not to mention a failure to summarize the articles correctly.
In the former article, TechDirt took Disney, the copyright owner, to task for being dumb at marketing. Not once did TD say that Disney's actions weren't following the law, just that they were stupid. TD recommended a more nuanced approach to copyright infringement on Disney's part to maximize its public image and, ultimately, its own profit.
This article isn't about Mr. Grecco, the copyright owner, being dumb at marketing, it's about Dasilva, the copyright violator, being dumb about copyright. Not only dumb, but deliberately dumb, refusing to learn. Indeed, TD has moderate praise for Mr. Grecco's personal policy about copyright infringement, as it is - gosh - nuanced.
These articles have different theses, SirWired, but they do approach them from the same perspective, if you look.
Moreover, according to http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Boston-Massachusetts.html, crime has been steadily trending downward for at least the past decade. That site only has data from 2001 - 2015, as the 2016 data isn't widely published yet, but it shows the trend.
Given your inability to get the crime rate correct I have grave doubts about your assertion of illegal immigrant activity and, for that matter, about your claim to be a legal immigrant from France.
To be clear a lot of Google Fiber's problems are not the company's fault. AT&T, Comcast, and Charter have filed numerous nuisance lawsuits designed to slow the company's use of city and telco-owned utility poles, and protectionist state laws pushed by these same companies often hinder attempts at public/private partnerships with cities.
Mike is well aware of the problem that regulation plays with the ISP market. In an ideal world we'd get rid of that regulation and foster an actual competitive market of ISPs. Failing that, however, FCC regulation of the existing monopolies is the next-best option.
A citizen suspected, but not proven, to be a terrorist should be warned, by his/her own government, that they're walking into potential arrest. Don't fall for the "suspicion = guilt" idiocy that our national cowards are bandying about. As others have said, one of the duties of government is to protect its own citizens, even (or especially?) from foreign governments.
If the US believes that they have enough to prove a foreigner guilty of terrorism, have them start extradition proceedings. Then the citizen's own government can observe the proper procedures. If the US doesn't have enough to prove guilt sufficient for extradition then that person is innocent, by our own principles.
Speech is not action? That's some nice Orwellian doublethink right there. Of course speech is action; it's action that is protected from government interference by the First Amendment. You should really read "1984" before you start trying to pull Orwell into an argument.
You continue your own Orwellian propaganda by mixing government and private actions in your next statement. Government punishment for political views is fascist. Private, legal punishment for political views is culture. Mind you, when we judge elements of that culture to be morally wrong, such as racism, we may enshrine protections from that private punishment in the law, such as the protections from private hiring/firing based on race. However, I find nothing morally wrong with private, legal punishments of a racist, and it seems to me that the majority of Americans agree with me.
Actions have consequences. If our hypothetical racist chooses to express his (we'll assume this is a male) racism by attending a white supremacist rally and he gets fired as a result, then action has met consequence. Whether the racist learns anything from it is up to him. Perhaps he learns that racism is bad. Perhaps he learns that he shouldn't publicly wave his racism about. Perhaps he learns nothing. Nevertheless, action has met consequence.
Plenty of people have demonstrated for truly worthy causes and experienced much worse consequences. They bore the consequences in the hopes that others would see their cause and be moved, advancing their cause a small step. I see these people's cause. I am not moved. They deserve their consequences.
You are conflating the rights of a website administrator with the rights of the user of a website. Had Facebook banned this user (say, due to violating their Terms by using certain language) there would have been no Constitutional violation.
However, since a user of the website, specifically a public official, blocked the user (on a page used for official business, etc.), said public official violated the 1st Amendment rights of the blocked user. The rights of the website administrator (Facebook, in this case) didn't come into play.
Nice try. However, next time go digging for the truth before spouting out right-wing lies (pardon me, "alternative facts").
The facts are that she didn't check any "Native American" box on any application to a University or for a job. See the Boston Globe and The Atlantic. She did indentify herself as "Native American" in a commonly-used legal directory, but that's it. She neither sought nor received a "leg up" for that.
As far as the cookbook she did, indeed, contribute to that, and identify herself as Cherokee.
Based on her public statements she does, in fact, believe that she has Cherokee heritage, based on family anecdotes. Whether those anecdotes are 100% accurate is debatable. What's not debatable is that there's no harm in her belief, since she has never made any attempt to trade on any such heritage.
You've forgotten the catch-22 where the Court requires standing to bring a lawsuit. To have standing you must be able to show that your emails have been searched. That information is locked up behind "national security" so that you can't know if your emails have been searched. Thus, no standing; thus, no lawsuit is possible.
How our USA courts can possibly go along with this is beyond me but so far, much to my surprise and dismay, they almost always have.
Insurance policies are issued to drivers based on the driver's record, age, location, and other actuarial factors. If the driver is not a factor, then I don't see an insurance company issuing a policy "to a car."
I'm not sure that's correct. My insurance policy is specific to the car. I'm not insured under my policy if I drive, say, a friend's car. Moreover, there are terms in my insurance that insure someone else driving my car as a "guest driver."
The cost of my insurance is affected by my driving record, etc., as I am listed as the "primary driver." However, the policy sure appears to be tied to the car, not me.
In fact, I could easily see an insurance company issuing a policy that sets terms on driverless operation. At first, those terms would probably be expensive, given the lack of data on driverless performance and accidents. However, I would expect that the cost of insuring driverless operation would come down fast, as I expect driverless operation to be a lot safer than human operation. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see policies issued that charge a premium for people who insist on driving themselves.
Traffic citations are issued to drivers based on their actions while in operation of that motor vehicle. I don't see law enforcement willing to attempt to stop and ticket a driverless car.
What makes you think it would ever be necessary to ticket a driverless car? They don't break driving laws, save temporarily to improve safety (one of those interesting things that the Google driverless car devs had to program in: without the ability to temporarily speed, tailgate, etc., driverless cars were found to be less safe when running on the road with other cars with human drivers). Indeed, the advent of the driverless car is likely to precipitate a budget problem for many cities, as their ticket revenue dries up.
In any event, if an officer did decide to ticket a driverless car, it wouldn't be hard to issue a ticket to the owner, based on the license plate.
I am assuming that this restriction revolves around liability. It makes some sense: if a *driverless* car is fulfilling a ride request from, say, Uber, and the car gets in an accident, who is liable? Currently, it's most likely *Tesla*, not the owner. After all, the owner wasn't anywhere near the car at the time.
For owners that contract with the Tesla Network, liability will likely be spelled out in the contract that the contractors sign with Tesla. However, Tesla has no control over the terms that, say, Uber makes with their contractors. Thus, the restriction to the Tesla Network.
This notion does make me wonder, though: what about liability for *anyone* riding in the car without the owner? Wouldn't the same problem apply? Perhaps Tesla is willing to shoulder the potential liability since that's a much less frequent occurrence?
I would expect that the Tesla Network would explicitly address liability for their driverless cars, probably by spelling out the terms in the contract they make with their contractors. However, Tesla has no control over the terms that non-Tesla-Network services set for their contractors, and currently that would likely throw all liability for problems onto Tesla, not the owner of the car.
If/when legislation specifically spells out how liability falls out for driverless cars I would hope that Tesla would be able to, and would proceed to, relax these restrictions. However, in the current legal framework, this is not unreasonable.
The link is perfectly clear, Mike. The KKK are "bad guys." The First Amendment permits them to say whatever they want to say, but they're still "bad guys." Lawbreakers are also "bad guys" - at least, according to the FBI - as are those who help them, like Moxie. The First Amendment allows them to say whatever they want to say, but they're still "bad guys."
Remember, a person is never a villain in his own eyes. An FBI spokesman is likely to have a rather black-and-white view of the world, with the FBI white and the FBI's suspects black. To him/her, Moxie is self-evidently wrong-headed, like a KKK member, and no reasonable person should agree with him. Engaging in a debate with him would only elevate his ideas to the public, as if they had some possible validity. Therefore, they won't.
Mind you, I certainly don't *agree* with this spokesman. He or she clearly has no perception or conception that the FBI might ever abuse their power, nor that there may be times when breaking the law might be a good thing (Rosa Parks comes instantly to mind). However, I can certainly *understand* why they would make such an (outrageous) statement.
Moreover, that's the irony of this whole mess. If T-Mobile had limited BingeOn's effects to only partners whom they had worked with to auto-adjust the quality, and left out the throttling, they could legitimately call this a customer benefit. There are still the issues of opt-in/opt-out and just how easy or difficult they make it to turn it off and on, but those are less important to most people. It's the throttling that brought on the uproar.
Since the EU-US Safe Harbor set up is under review anyway, modify it to require that any data transferred out of Europe and into American servers must be encrypted in transit and at its destination server. It would make the verification process more significant (and, thus, more expensive) but it would go a long way toward re-legitimizing the process.
The beauty of such a rule is that it would prompt many companies to simply encrypt everything in-transit and on-server, rather than trying to set up something specific to EU-US. That would be a good thing.
Re: Measured
What part of Title II standing would kick the FTC to the curb? Heck, the FTC took action against AT&T (and are being sued for it) while Title II was in effect.
The "offenses of the past" are not "supposed," they are well-documented abuses of the monopoly and near-monopoly power that ISPs have committed.
As this article and many others have iterated, the "overview of the FTC" is not stringent. There is already a legal question about whether the FTC will have the legal basis to deal with ISPs at all. Moreover, the FTC is already overburdened and must choose its battles. The ISPs are counting on that.
Finally, NN doesn't "lock the current system in" in any way. It's a set of rules of what ISPs are not allowed to do, not a set of rules about what ISPs must do. If we, the public, get our heads out of our behinds and pressure our representatives to remove the state regulations that bar local competition, NN will have no impact on new ISP businesses, save to prevent them from crafting NN-violating policies themselves.
I applaud your attempt to appear reasonable, but you read like an industry shill. Go find some other venue; TD readers are too well-informed to fall prey to this kind of rhetoric.
Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.
No, I think you misunderstand. Trump is evil, in that he is completely selfish (the root of all evil, IMHO). However, he is also dumb. He is convinced of several conspiracy-theory notions, including that he and/or his staff were spied upon during his Presidential campaign. That's what he is referencing here. He saw the Fox News piece, thought to himself, "See? I was right, they were spying on me!" and spat out this tweet.
He had no idea it might impact ongoing litigation, litigation against his own DOJ. It's possible that he wouldn't care even if he did know. All Trump cares about is Trump; his DOJ can go hang if they don't support him and his deranged theories.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is an incredibly stupid approach
Re: I just don't get it TechDirt
Nice false equivalency, SirWired, not to mention a failure to summarize the articles correctly.
In the former article, TechDirt took Disney, the copyright owner, to task for being dumb at marketing. Not once did TD say that Disney's actions weren't following the law, just that they were stupid. TD recommended a more nuanced approach to copyright infringement on Disney's part to maximize its public image and, ultimately, its own profit.
This article isn't about Mr. Grecco, the copyright owner, being dumb at marketing, it's about Dasilva, the copyright violator, being dumb about copyright. Not only dumb, but deliberately dumb, refusing to learn. Indeed, TD has moderate praise for Mr. Grecco's personal policy about copyright infringement, as it is - gosh - nuanced.
These articles have different theses, SirWired, but they do approach them from the same perspective, if you look.
Re: Re:
Oh, really?
Moreover, according to http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Boston-Massachusetts.html, crime has been steadily trending downward for at least the past decade. That site only has data from 2001 - 2015, as the 2016 data isn't widely published yet, but it shows the trend.
Given your inability to get the crime rate correct I have grave doubts about your assertion of illegal immigrant activity and, for that matter, about your claim to be a legal immigrant from France.
Re:
Having some difficulty reading? From the article:
Mike is well aware of the problem that regulation plays with the ISP market. In an ideal world we'd get rid of that regulation and foster an actual competitive market of ISPs. Failing that, however, FCC regulation of the existing monopolies is the next-best option.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A citizen suspected, but not proven, to be a terrorist should be warned, by his/her own government, that they're walking into potential arrest. Don't fall for the "suspicion = guilt" idiocy that our national cowards are bandying about. As others have said, one of the duties of government is to protect its own citizens, even (or especially?) from foreign governments.
If the US believes that they have enough to prove a foreigner guilty of terrorism, have them start extradition proceedings. Then the citizen's own government can observe the proper procedures. If the US doesn't have enough to prove guilt sufficient for extradition then that person is innocent, by our own principles.
Re: Re: Re:
Speech is not action? That's some nice Orwellian doublethink right there. Of course speech is action; it's action that is protected from government interference by the First Amendment. You should really read "1984" before you start trying to pull Orwell into an argument.
You continue your own Orwellian propaganda by mixing government and private actions in your next statement. Government punishment for political views is fascist. Private, legal punishment for political views is culture. Mind you, when we judge elements of that culture to be morally wrong, such as racism, we may enshrine protections from that private punishment in the law, such as the protections from private hiring/firing based on race. However, I find nothing morally wrong with private, legal punishments of a racist, and it seems to me that the majority of Americans agree with me.
Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
When these organizations start promoting a racist agenda I'll express outrage. Since it hasn't happened there's no need.
OTOH, the Charlottesville racists deserve all the scorn and disdain we can manage to heap on them.
Re:
Plenty of people have demonstrated for truly worthy causes and experienced much worse consequences. They bore the consequences in the hopes that others would see their cause and be moved, advancing their cause a small step. I see these people's cause. I am not moved. They deserve their consequences.
(untitled comment)
You are conflating the rights of a website administrator with the rights of the user of a website. Had Facebook banned this user (say, due to violating their Terms by using certain language) there would have been no Constitutional violation.
However, since a user of the website, specifically a public official, blocked the user (on a page used for official business, etc.), said public official violated the 1st Amendment rights of the blocked user. The rights of the website administrator (Facebook, in this case) didn't come into play.
Re: Re:
Nice try. However, next time go digging for the truth before spouting out right-wing lies (pardon me, "alternative facts").
The facts are that she didn't check any "Native American" box on any application to a University or for a job. See the Boston Globe and The Atlantic. She did indentify herself as "Native American" in a commonly-used legal directory, but that's it. She neither sought nor received a "leg up" for that.
As far as the cookbook she did, indeed, contribute to that, and identify herself as Cherokee.
Based on her public statements she does, in fact, believe that she has Cherokee heritage, based on family anecdotes. Whether those anecdotes are 100% accurate is debatable. What's not debatable is that there's no harm in her belief, since she has never made any attempt to trade on any such heritage.
Re: Re: The Fourth Amendment
You've forgotten the catch-22 where the Court requires standing to bring a lawsuit. To have standing you must be able to show that your emails have been searched. That information is locked up behind "national security" so that you can't know if your emails have been searched. Thus, no standing; thus, no lawsuit is possible.
How our USA courts can possibly go along with this is beyond me but so far, much to my surprise and dismay, they almost always have.
Re:
Re: Insurance and tickets
I'm not sure that's correct. My insurance policy is specific to the car. I'm not insured under my policy if I drive, say, a friend's car. Moreover, there are terms in my insurance that insure someone else driving my car as a "guest driver."
The cost of my insurance is affected by my driving record, etc., as I am listed as the "primary driver." However, the policy sure appears to be tied to the car, not me.
In fact, I could easily see an insurance company issuing a policy that sets terms on driverless operation. At first, those terms would probably be expensive, given the lack of data on driverless performance and accidents. However, I would expect that the cost of insuring driverless operation would come down fast, as I expect driverless operation to be a lot safer than human operation. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see policies issued that charge a premium for people who insist on driving themselves.
What makes you think it would ever be necessary to ticket a driverless car? They don't break driving laws, save temporarily to improve safety (one of those interesting things that the Google driverless car devs had to program in: without the ability to temporarily speed, tailgate, etc., driverless cars were found to be less safe when running on the road with other cars with human drivers). Indeed, the advent of the driverless car is likely to precipitate a budget problem for many cities, as their ticket revenue dries up.
In any event, if an officer did decide to ticket a driverless car, it wouldn't be hard to issue a ticket to the owner, based on the license plate.
Liability? Hmm ...
For owners that contract with the Tesla Network, liability will likely be spelled out in the contract that the contractors sign with Tesla. However, Tesla has no control over the terms that, say, Uber makes with their contractors. Thus, the restriction to the Tesla Network.
This notion does make me wonder, though: what about liability for *anyone* riding in the car without the owner? Wouldn't the same problem apply? Perhaps Tesla is willing to shoulder the potential liability since that's a much less frequent occurrence?
Re: Liability? naw...
If/when legislation specifically spells out how liability falls out for driverless cars I would hope that Tesla would be able to, and would proceed to, relax these restrictions. However, in the current legal framework, this is not unreasonable.
The link is clear
Remember, a person is never a villain in his own eyes. An FBI spokesman is likely to have a rather black-and-white view of the world, with the FBI white and the FBI's suspects black. To him/her, Moxie is self-evidently wrong-headed, like a KKK member, and no reasonable person should agree with him. Engaging in a debate with him would only elevate his ideas to the public, as if they had some possible validity. Therefore, they won't.
Mind you, I certainly don't *agree* with this spokesman. He or she clearly has no perception or conception that the FBI might ever abuse their power, nor that there may be times when breaking the law might be a good thing (Rosa Parks comes instantly to mind). However, I can certainly *understand* why they would make such an (outrageous) statement.
Re: video quality
Mandate encryption
The beauty of such a rule is that it would prompt many companies to simply encrypt everything in-transit and on-server, rather than trying to set up something specific to EU-US. That would be a good thing.
More comments from FamilyManFirst >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by FamilyManFirst.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt