If these rabble-rousing representatives of the gullible populace wish to have a site that cannot censor speech, they should create a Government web site or a twittering equivalent. Can't see any reason why that wouldn't work out splendidly for everyone. An irony would be that they'd probably want to pay a commercial service to host the site, but none would want the contract due the the illegal content, as shown recently with Parler.
Of course, such a site isn't really needed, since there are major news outlets of every stripe that seem willing to publish any effluvium that spills from the mouths of the willfully ignorant.
So, when the police tell me that I'm not free to go, I can choose to believe that they're lying and I'm actually free to go? Or if they tell me that I'm free to go and then they shoot me as I leave, it's okay (for them), because they weren't required to tell me the truth about whether I was actually being detained or seized.
Bottom line, if a cop with a gun tells you to do something, you better do it. It's not fair, but it is how the law currently works. Know your rights, but don't be stupid and get shot because the cop doesn't know them or doesn't care.
I'm pretty sure the bars are buying their internet services from an ISP which is already required to collect and maintain these records. Why should businesses that aren't actually ISPs be required to ALSO keep such records?
Makes me wonder how popular VPN services are in France. Perhaps this law is an attempt overcome situations when the business itself connects to a VPN such that the ISP cannot discern the actions of the business' patrons.
Isn't it about time for the Buckeyes to differentiate themselves from the real OSU, Oklahoma State University? If Ohio State is so proud of its "The," then they should be calling themselves TOSU.
Why bother hooking it up to a facial recognition system? I would think that just having to show your face to a camera before the door unlocks would deter all but the latest Stupid Criminal of the Week contenders.
I get most of my "news" reading through a summary page, just seeing the headlines and the sentence or so of intro text. I rarely click through to the full article. Will sites need to track which headlines they showed me? If I don't sign in to the conglomeration service, how would they ever know how to contact me, lurking on the other side of my VPN?
On the other hand, this is going to generate some very interesting "transparency" pages where some entity, outside of the control of the censorial country, collects the records of which articles have been targeted and provides fact-checking rebuttals.
I understand your frustration with how sometimes the link you want is on page 9, or the frustration of a small publisher whose link to a story is on page 13. But that's not what's happening here. These are the big guys. They not only depend on Google to drive traffic to their sites, but they're already listed on the first page of results, and they craft their webpages and place ads on Google to make sure you see their link on the first page. Then they use the free Google Analytics to evaluate their own website and further optimize the structure. They place Google Ads on their sites, so that when Google directs people to their site, they'll make even more money when that same person clicks on the ad. These guys want a snippet tax because people actually see and click on their snippets. That hometown rag on page 13, it's simply not going to get enough click-through volume to make a snippet tax worthwhile. And if you think it reasonable that Google would pay a snippet tax to every entry on all 23 pages of results, then you're nuts. If that happens, they'd just list the top dozen results, and the small guy's result back on page 13 would never even appear.
I think I'll create a listing of businesses that deal with butter; their phone numbers and addresses. Then I'll share it with everyone for free. If a butter producer or vendor wants to get noticed, he can pay me to make his listing bold, or he can pay more to insert an advertisement. To remind everyone that this listing is about butter, I'll print it on yellow paper and call it the Yellow Pages. Next year I'll make even more money by filing copyright violations on anyone who sends mail to these businesses.
In these days of broadband communications, it’s hard to remember that there are still some very low data rate channels in use. Meteor burst, VLF, and others offer some unique propagation benefits, but at speeds that were already eclipsed by 1980’s era telephone modems. So, imagine that your communications set already has the voice parameters of the people you’re most likely to talk with. Now, by simply exchanging text at a low data rate, your comm gear can convert the words into realistic voices that actually sound like the people with whom you’re talking. Real-time conversations on channels that are running 75 bits per second, or less. Just add some encryption and authentication protocols, and Bob's your uncle.
Hats off to science fiction author David Drake and his Hammer’s Slammers series, where hovercraft tank commanders use this approach to hold voice conversations via radio waves bounced off of the ionized trails left by the small meteors that constantly burn up in the atmosphere; a very robust but low data rate communications channel.
So, Kim Dotcom provided a search tool to enable copyright owners to find pirated files and submit take-down requests. But the DOJ argues that the presence of the tool also aids people looking to pirate the same material. Therefore Kim must be liable for the copyright violations because he provided a tool that made file sharing easier. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Put up a warning on your website, and see if some non-Californian prosecutor doesn’t try to argue that since you’re aware of crime on your site you must be complicit in its commission. No warning? Then you're liable for not providing a warning.
What do you mean, you didn't know there was a problem? Everyone knows that there are dangers on the Internet. Yes, that same Everyone that you need to provide the warning to.
Sure, maybe copyright prevented them from checking the Hacking Team archive. Or maybe not. Perhaps this is the researchers' way of avoiding a copyright lawsuit while still getting the message out, "Hey, y'all might want to look at that stuff. If I was allowed to look, that's sure the place I'd want to look. Yeah, right there in section 7.3. Just a guess."
I don't know how well Mattel is going to do at confirming the identity of the Barbie owners, but I suspect that guy in the apartment across the hall who plays loud music all the time and leaves his WIFI unsecured is gonna be really surprised when child services comes knocking.
Not that I would change a thing about Whitey Bulger's multiple life sentences, but I find more and more that I believe he's telling the truth that Government officials told him he would be immune to prosecution.
"I can't remember a time where I have been asked in all my years in the Congress to vote yes ahead of time on a bill we haven't seen, and there are no amendments" allowed."
He can't remember a few weeks ago when they gave fast-track authorization to TPP, a huge trade policy that few congress critters have read and virtually none of their staffers were allowed to read?!?
'Some may argue that this automated collection of license plates may be dragging some people under the "suspected criminals" umbrella that shouldn't really be there. That's likely true, but this is one of those inescapable outcomes of dragnet operations. They may also argue that turning over this information to the public may cause some of those listed to be subjected to harassment or put them in danger. Also, this may unfortunately be true as well.'
Boggles my mind how they think $15 is a good price point when they offer just a fraction of the number of titles available via Netflix for about half that cost. And, Game of Thrones is simply NOT worth $180 per year. Yikes!
I'd definitely recommend waiting for other providers to offer this at a hugely discounted rate.
Go ahead, create a Government run free-speech site. I dare you
If these rabble-rousing representatives of the gullible populace wish to have a site that cannot censor speech, they should create a Government web site or a twittering equivalent. Can't see any reason why that wouldn't work out splendidly for everyone. An irony would be that they'd probably want to pay a commercial service to host the site, but none would want the contract due the the illegal content, as shown recently with Parler.
Of course, such a site isn't really needed, since there are major news outlets of every stripe that seem willing to publish any effluvium that spills from the mouths of the willfully ignorant.
Lying cops
So, when the police tell me that I'm not free to go, I can choose to believe that they're lying and I'm actually free to go? Or if they tell me that I'm free to go and then they shoot me as I leave, it's okay (for them), because they weren't required to tell me the truth about whether I was actually being detained or seized.
Bottom line, if a cop with a gun tells you to do something, you better do it. It's not fair, but it is how the law currently works. Know your rights, but don't be stupid and get shot because the cop doesn't know them or doesn't care.
Department of Redundancies Department
I'm pretty sure the bars are buying their internet services from an ISP which is already required to collect and maintain these records. Why should businesses that aren't actually ISPs be required to ALSO keep such records?
Makes me wonder how popular VPN services are in France. Perhaps this law is an attempt overcome situations when the business itself connects to a VPN such that the ISP cannot discern the actions of the business' patrons.
The Office of Silly Ubbreviations
Isn't it about time for the Buckeyes to differentiate themselves from the real OSU, Oklahoma State University? If Ohio State is so proud of its "The," then they should be calling themselves TOSU.
I saw you looking at my girlfriend
I'm sure that allowing employees to nominate pictures for the Keep Out database won't be abused by anyone.
Smile for your mugshot
Why bother hooking it up to a facial recognition system? I would think that just having to show your face to a camera before the door unlocks would deter all but the latest Stupid Criminal of the Week contenders.
news summaries
I get most of my "news" reading through a summary page, just seeing the headlines and the sentence or so of intro text. I rarely click through to the full article. Will sites need to track which headlines they showed me? If I don't sign in to the conglomeration service, how would they ever know how to contact me, lurking on the other side of my VPN?
On the other hand, this is going to generate some very interesting "transparency" pages where some entity, outside of the control of the censorial country, collects the records of which articles have been targeted and provides fact-checking rebuttals.
Re: IGetWhyButHowCanBeDifferent
These are the big guys. They not only depend on Google to drive traffic to their sites, but they're already listed on the first page of results, and they craft their webpages and place ads on Google to make sure you see their link on the first page. Then they use the free Google Analytics to evaluate their own website and further optimize the structure. They place Google Ads on their sites, so that when Google directs people to their site, they'll make even more money when that same person clicks on the ad. These guys want a snippet tax because people actually see and click on their snippets. That hometown rag on page 13, it's simply not going to get enough click-through volume to make a snippet tax worthwhile.
And if you think it reasonable that Google would pay a snippet tax to every entry on all 23 pages of results, then you're nuts. If that happens, they'd just list the top dozen results, and the small guy's result back on page 13 would never even appear.
a butter analogy
Next year I'll make even more money by filing copyright violations on anyone who sends mail to these businesses.
Re: Re: "Sen. Richard Blumenthal's stunning[???] response"
Did you mean to address your comment to, "Orwell, I suppose it is possible that SESTA supporters would want that as well."
Benefits for communications
Hats off to science fiction author David Drake and his Hammer’s Slammers series, where hovercraft tank commanders use this approach to hold voice conversations via radio waves bounced off of the ionized trails left by the small meteors that constantly burn up in the atmosphere; a very robust but low data rate communications channel.
and then they twist it against you
What do you mean, you didn't know there was a problem? Everyone knows that there are dangers on the Internet. Yes, that same Everyone that you need to provide the warning to.
A wink and a nod...
Next, we'll hear...
Swatting Barbie
... and they have this...
- The right to regularly use chemical weapons that would be illegal if used by the military, according to the Geneva Conventions.
sounds familiar
... and they say Justice is blind!
He can't remember a few weeks ago when they gave fast-track authorization to TPP, a huge trade policy that few congress critters have read and virtually none of their staffers were allowed to read?!?
more for the goose...
Say what?
I'd definitely recommend waiting for other providers to offer this at a hugely discounted rate.
More comments from Griffdog >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Griffdog.
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