When you don't follow through with your huge announced plans (hello, Google Fiber) and axe a bunch of existing products seemingly at random, this is the kind of reluctance and "wait until it shows success" attitude people will have toward your hyped new products.
Regarding Renee DiResta, it should be noted that she is also the Director of Research of New Knowledge, a cybersecurity company that may not only have a financial interest in the question, but which also conducted an "experiment" in which they created fake Russian trollbots to follow a Republican senate candidate and then smeared him for those faked associations. Oddly, they declared that their "experiment" had no effect on the outcome of that race.
The cost of encryption is “ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims — men, women and children who are the victims of crimes, crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence," Barr said during a speech at a cybersecurity conference.
How exactly would the lack of encryption have helped Barr prevent this shooting? This is pure fearmongering.
Swisher is a tech bubble herself. She seems to believe she asks all the hard questions, has such deep insights, and breaks deep news (see for example all the self-cites to her interview with Zuckerberg at SXSW a few years ago, which she constantly references in new pieces, and which she seems to believe was profound, powerful work).
But the reality is that her work is mostly the hot air of a hype bubble -- superficial, sometimes to the point of being silly. The piece cited in Mike's article above is one. Another is a fairly recent piece (also in the NYT) about the potential societal benefits of tech companies creating "chief ethical officer" positions, which she took at face value and treated earnestly, seemingly oblivious to the notion that these might just be pure PR moves and that no actual power would be accorded to such figureheads whatsoever.
Well, one of our legislature's recent priorities has been to try to block city/county govts from banning plastic bags, so let's not get hasty with the accolades yet. The year is young and still so many opportunities to propose backward or stupid legislation.
Google/Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple are sitting on piles and piles of cash. It's stunning that -- especially given their cash reserves -- they would leave themselves so exposed to Comcast, Charter, and AT&T like this. They could jointly charter a new corporation (maybe even a non-profit, to collect some good will) to build out fiber and become an ISP; they could also join forces to put political pressure on Congress to make deployment easier and to regulate the current broadband monopoly/duopoly more strongly.
Is this really the look the Democrats want, upon finally re-capturing a bit of power, to go caping for AT&T in the House of Representatives? It's [stuff] like this that makes people think maybe they're another corporate party or something.
It's basically stopped in Nashville, too, best I can tell.
I don't know why the Googles and Amazons and Apples don't form a consortium for widespread deployment. They have to know the value of not being subject to Comcast and AT&T's tolls. Of course all the better for the people if municipalities (or whole states) do this themselves, but surely it's in these mega-corps long-term interest to undertake it.
She's really giving Marsha Blackburn a run for her money in the coveted Moron Division, which is quite the crowded field here in Tennessee politics, let me tell you.
It's the charging people to remove it that's the problem. It's even more of a racket if that was done without regard to the disposition of the charge.
I don't find anything above at all persuasive as to why a mugshot should automatically be a publicly-available "public record." Fingerprints, too? Photos of victims used in a prosecution? I can see when there should be times a mugshot can become publicly available (e.g. if a convict or arrestee has escaped or jumped bail), but not any reason it must automatically be merely because the government took it.
Reading comprehension fail. The points in this piece as they pertain to the word "noninvasive" aren't at all about the medical meaning. Quite the opposite, it's entirely predicated on that correct meaning. Here, it's just a rhetorical reuse of the word in terms of its implications in law and civil liberties, contrasting the very different implications of that noninvasiveness in medical vs legal contexts -- to wit, the ability for officers to "search" an individual for evidence of criminal behavior (from something every person leaves behind every minute of their lives) without any prior suspicion. It's the noninvasive nature (medical) of the diagnostic technique that creates the great potential for invasive (legal) abuse by officers.
Ethically, it's obvious you're attempting to discredit very important discussion of civil liberty concerns by denigrating the piece and the author via a bogus use of pedantic "concerns" that are entirely deceptive as to the point of the piece.
So the government is going to decide who are legitimate speakers, and it will be the task of social media companies to then delete those. Sure, so problems with that.
Of course probably the easiest way to do this is for citizens to register their accounts with the government to be "validated."
Marsha has overplayed her hand this time, though. She's running for Corker's Senate seat against a popular Democrat who was two-term governor and mayor of Nashville.
The net neutrality and ISP privacy regs negations make her look worse (that she's a near-Palinesque moron already makes her look bad). People in TN are particularly angry about their internet and cable bill (and all manner of Blackburn style Internet f*ckery), seeing Chattanooga's amazing municipal broadband deployment; Nashvillians are doubly so, given the way AT&T and Comcast have stymied Google Fiber.
There's always a chance for a double-digit IQ conservative candidate in this state, but she will be in for a hell of a fight and may well lose. No doubt Comcast has a chair all warmed up for her.
(untitled comment)
Always bet on beagle.
Re:
RIP John, RIP Root.
Re:
When you don't follow through with your huge announced plans (hello, Google Fiber) and axe a bunch of existing products seemingly at random, this is the kind of reluctance and "wait until it shows success" attitude people will have toward your hyped new products.
Renee DiResta
Regarding Renee DiResta, it should be noted that she is also the Director of Research of New Knowledge, a cybersecurity company that may not only have a financial interest in the question, but which also conducted an "experiment" in which they created fake Russian trollbots to follow a Republican senate candidate and then smeared him for those faked associations. Oddly, they declared that their "experiment" had no effect on the outcome of that race.
Here's the story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html
So...
Is there a link to order it or look at it?
Who are the contributors to the anthology?
(untitled comment)
From thehill article:
How exactly would the lack of encryption have helped Barr prevent this shooting? This is pure fearmongering.
Re:
This needs more recognition. Schools should not be forcing the publishers' corrupt model onto the students.
(untitled comment)
Swisher is a tech bubble herself. She seems to believe she asks all the hard questions, has such deep insights, and breaks deep news (see for example all the self-cites to her interview with Zuckerberg at SXSW a few years ago, which she constantly references in new pieces, and which she seems to believe was profound, powerful work).
But the reality is that her work is mostly the hot air of a hype bubble -- superficial, sometimes to the point of being silly. The piece cited in Mike's article above is one. Another is a fairly recent piece (also in the NYT) about the potential societal benefits of tech companies creating "chief ethical officer" positions, which she took at face value and treated earnestly, seemingly oblivious to the notion that these might just be pure PR moves and that no actual power would be accorded to such figureheads whatsoever.
Re:
You win the Internetz this week.
Re:
Well, one of our legislature's recent priorities has been to try to block city/county govts from banning plastic bags, so let's not get hasty with the accolades yet. The year is young and still so many opportunities to propose backward or stupid legislation.
(untitled comment)
Google/Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple are sitting on piles and piles of cash. It's stunning that -- especially given their cash reserves -- they would leave themselves so exposed to Comcast, Charter, and AT&T like this. They could jointly charter a new corporation (maybe even a non-profit, to collect some good will) to build out fiber and become an ISP; they could also join forces to put political pressure on Congress to make deployment easier and to regulate the current broadband monopoly/duopoly more strongly.
(untitled comment)
A poor look especially for Schiff, whose top contributor in 2017-2018 was AT&T ($27k).
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00009585
Dammit
I don't know why the Googles and Amazons and Apples don't form a consortium for widespread deployment. They have to know the value of not being subject to Comcast and AT&T's tolls. Of course all the better for the people if municipalities (or whole states) do this themselves, but surely it's in these mega-corps long-term interest to undertake it.
Congrats to Diane
Re: Re: Re: Them today, you tomorrow
I don't find anything above at all persuasive as to why a mugshot should automatically be a publicly-available "public record." Fingerprints, too? Photos of victims used in a prosecution? I can see when there should be times a mugshot can become publicly available (e.g. if a convict or arrestee has escaped or jumped bail), but not any reason it must automatically be merely because the government took it.
Re:
Reading comprehension fail. The points in this piece as they pertain to the word "noninvasive" aren't at all about the medical meaning. Quite the opposite, it's entirely predicated on that correct meaning. Here, it's just a rhetorical reuse of the word in terms of its implications in law and civil liberties, contrasting the very different implications of that noninvasiveness in medical vs legal contexts -- to wit, the ability for officers to "search" an individual for evidence of criminal behavior (from something every person leaves behind every minute of their lives) without any prior suspicion. It's the noninvasive nature (medical) of the diagnostic technique that creates the great potential for invasive (legal) abuse by officers.
Ethically, it's obvious you're attempting to discredit very important discussion of civil liberty concerns by denigrating the piece and the author via a bogus use of pedantic "concerns" that are entirely deceptive as to the point of the piece.
scotus
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/supreme-court-upholds-important-weapon-in-the-fight -against-bad-patents/
BAM!
(untitled comment)
So the government is going to decide who are legitimate speakers, and it will be the task of social media companies to then delete those. Sure, so problems with that.
Of course probably the easiest way to do this is for citizens to register their accounts with the government to be "validated."
Re:
Wow, if you can't even abide discussion about free speech, what kind of commitment to it did you ever actually have?
"How dare you post a thoughtful discussion and set of questions about speech!"
LOL, man.
(untitled comment)
The net neutrality and ISP privacy regs negations make her look worse (that she's a near-Palinesque moron already makes her look bad). People in TN are particularly angry about their internet and cable bill (and all manner of Blackburn style Internet f*ckery), seeing Chattanooga's amazing municipal broadband deployment; Nashvillians are doubly so, given the way AT&T and Comcast have stymied Google Fiber.
There's always a chance for a double-digit IQ conservative candidate in this state, but she will be in for a hell of a fight and may well lose. No doubt Comcast has a chair all warmed up for her.
More comments from HegemonicDistortion >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by HegemonicDistortion.
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