Fix the authentication system to prevent credential replay attacks, maybe? Two factor authentication? Client certificate validation? "We don't recognize the computer you're connecting from, so we're gonna send you a code in an SMS message or email", even.
Personally, I don't mind the bank knowing I accessed my account. Comcast, however, has no need to know that. Nor does Level3. Nor, unless they have reasonable suspicion, does the government (although I am well aware that the bank will hand over the records in a heartbeat). So the question is, do I care enough about whether they know to put effort into keeping them from knowing? For some people, the answer will be yes. For you, perhaps not.
By "for cause" I intended to imply that there was a valid reason for revocation, and the process was followed correctly, so yeah, due process, sufficient evidence, meets legal criteria. Loss of share value as a consequence of corporate action is a known and accepted risk of share ownership, so compensation is not an issue.
While I also dislike the dimissal of the doctrine of accuracy as a defense, this is Canada, and as far as I know this is an area they share with the UK - accuracy doesn't make it non-defamatory
Then if you would please explain what term would be appropriate for the equivalent of an ad-hominem against a non-human entity, I'd be quite grateful. I always thought "ad hominem", despite the literal meaning of the root terms, was against an author, whether that author was an individual or a committee or a corporation. Given how many times a day corporations get slammed, we really need a term that applies to them.
You're assuming that the judge and jury got the right answer and weren't bamboozled by an expensive and slick advertising^Wlegal team. Which of course is the hoped-for outcome... but not one that many folks have a lot of faith in nowadays.
I'm just trying to remember the last time I saw as many as 3 people obeying the speed limit on the interstate in a day. Or more than one percent leaving enough room between them and the car in front of them to deal with an emergency stop. Or a day without at least 3 people changing lanes without signals.
There's a big difference between "accident-avoiding in normal circumstances" and "law-abiding".
One conclusion that I think can be safely made is "the prevailing wisdom was not confirmed by this test". Which always leads to the most interesting questions.
perhaps he's referring to your use of "kcal" when the article uses "Calorie", not realizing that capital-C "Calorie" means 1000 little-c "calories", as does "kilocalorie" or "kcal". (since those are the only numbers I see at all in your post:)
Only if you're lying. If you're taking advantage of ignorance, desperation, and/or gullibility, but your statements are not false and do not imply falsehood to someone who actually knows what's going on, it's just "good marketing".
So I request the footage and the cop says no. So much for oversight.
Or I request the footage and the suspect says no. Possibly because the cop intimidated him into refusing permission. Again, so much for oversight.
I don't see all civilians as being good. I do see civilians as being at the lower end of the power imbalance and I want to maintain oversight capability to keep it from getting more imbalanced.
There is a fine line. Without more info you don't know which side I'm on. For example, what if I want to examine footage from the time when a cop is alleged to have used excessive force when apprehending a suspect? Is that me being a busybody or reasonably wanting to keep an eye on those authorized to use lethal force? And how do you make the dividing line objective enough to codify in rules? Because if you can't do that, then you're stuck with picking someone to make subjective calls, and then you're forced to trust them to get it right. Given the levels of regulatory capture we've been seeing, that's not an option that bodes well.
point. Viewing the footage at the station to determine which chunk you want to buy a copy of should be free. Even if you don't buy a copy you have enough information to get it subpoenaed if you need it in a case.
Depends how you define free. Your question seems to be equating "free market" with what Wikipedia calls "laissez-faire", but for many people, "free market" means a market where the forces of supply and demand are free from manipulation by any large entity, not just the government. Which means no monopolies or monopsonies. The problem is that keeping someone who wants to build a monopoly from doing so can be difficult without adding other forces, and even if they don't want one, if nobody else wants to compete, they effectively have one and you can only hope they don't use their power for evil.
Unfortunately that's also business as usual pretty much anywhere. The legislature passes a law saying "the people gotta adhere to these regulations" and the regulations are maintained and added to over time by a bureaucracy, with no need for the legislature to approve the changes before they go into effect.
If you'll explain how I, as a concerned citizen, can tell the difference between being refused access to footage because the subject is embarrassed about something that I really don't have any need to know and being refused access because either the police or the subject are embarrassed about something that I do have a reasonable need to know, then I'm fine with that.
But lacking the ability to make that distinction myself without having seen the footage myself, and having a lack of trusted disinterested parties who have seen it, I have to lean towards making it available. And yes, if I'm naked on the toilet and a cop busts in, I'm okay with that footage being released because I believe being able to prove whether the cop behaved properly is worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Fix the authentication system to prevent credential replay attacks, maybe? Two factor authentication? Client certificate validation? "We don't recognize the computer you're connecting from, so we're gonna send you a code in an SMS message or email", even.
Personally, I don't mind the bank knowing I accessed my account. Comcast, however, has no need to know that. Nor does Level3. Nor, unless they have reasonable suspicion, does the government (although I am well aware that the bank will hand over the records in a heartbeat). So the question is, do I care enough about whether they know to put effort into keeping them from knowing? For some people, the answer will be yes. For you, perhaps not.
How about just requiring (and supplying) two-factor authentication for TOR connections? Or even for all connections?
you're conflating intelligence and wisdom.
By "for cause" I intended to imply that there was a valid reason for revocation, and the process was followed correctly, so yeah, due process, sufficient evidence, meets legal criteria. Loss of share value as a consequence of corporate action is a known and accepted risk of share ownership, so compensation is not an issue.
How does revoking a corporate charter for cause violate the rights of the shareholders or employees?
or sarcasm
While I also dislike the dimissal of the doctrine of accuracy as a defense, this is Canada, and as far as I know this is an area they share with the UK - accuracy doesn't make it non-defamatory
Yeah, but what securities trader worth their salt is going to be on a Scottish island more than 50 miles from anywhere instead of in London?
Then if you would please explain what term would be appropriate for the equivalent of an ad-hominem against a non-human entity, I'd be quite grateful. I always thought "ad hominem", despite the literal meaning of the root terms, was against an author, whether that author was an individual or a committee or a corporation. Given how many times a day corporations get slammed, we really need a term that applies to them.
Fine by me, if it's one of the smaller thorium types that would actually fit in one backyard.
You're assuming that the judge and jury got the right answer and weren't bamboozled by an expensive and slick advertising^Wlegal team. Which of course is the hoped-for outcome... but not one that many folks have a lot of faith in nowadays.
I'm just trying to remember the last time I saw as many as 3 people obeying the speed limit on the interstate in a day. Or more than one percent leaving enough room between them and the car in front of them to deal with an emergency stop. Or a day without at least 3 people changing lanes without signals.
There's a big difference between "accident-avoiding in normal circumstances" and "law-abiding".
Agreed. I was trying to address the more general "it's okay to take advantage of people; that's how capitalism works".
I would question whether the actually law abiding human driver is common enough to be considered "usual".
One conclusion that I think can be safely made is "the prevailing wisdom was not confirmed by this test". Which always leads to the most interesting questions.
perhaps he's referring to your use of "kcal" when the article uses "Calorie", not realizing that capital-C "Calorie" means 1000 little-c "calories", as does "kilocalorie" or "kcal". (since those are the only numbers I see at all in your post :)
Only if you're lying. If you're taking advantage of ignorance, desperation, and/or gullibility, but your statements are not false and do not imply falsehood to someone who actually knows what's going on, it's just "good marketing".
mount a few dozen of these on your clothes and have a wearable beowulf :)
So I request the footage and the cop says no. So much for oversight.
Or I request the footage and the suspect says no. Possibly because the cop intimidated him into refusing permission. Again, so much for oversight.
I don't see all civilians as being good. I do see civilians as being at the lower end of the power imbalance and I want to maintain oversight capability to keep it from getting more imbalanced.
There is a fine line. Without more info you don't know which side I'm on. For example, what if I want to examine footage from the time when a cop is alleged to have used excessive force when apprehending a suspect? Is that me being a busybody or reasonably wanting to keep an eye on those authorized to use lethal force? And how do you make the dividing line objective enough to codify in rules? Because if you can't do that, then you're stuck with picking someone to make subjective calls, and then you're forced to trust them to get it right. Given the levels of regulatory capture we've been seeing, that's not an option that bodes well.
point. Viewing the footage at the station to determine which chunk you want to buy a copy of should be free. Even if you don't buy a copy you have enough information to get it subpoenaed if you need it in a case.
Depends how you define free. Your question seems to be equating "free market" with what Wikipedia calls "laissez-faire", but for many people, "free market" means a market where the forces of supply and demand are free from manipulation by any large entity, not just the government. Which means no monopolies or monopsonies. The problem is that keeping someone who wants to build a monopoly from doing so can be difficult without adding other forces, and even if they don't want one, if nobody else wants to compete, they effectively have one and you can only hope they don't use their power for evil.
Unfortunately that's also business as usual pretty much anywhere. The legislature passes a law saying "the people gotta adhere to these regulations" and the regulations are maintained and added to over time by a bureaucracy, with no need for the legislature to approve the changes before they go into effect.
If you'll explain how I, as a concerned citizen, can tell the difference between being refused access to footage because the subject is embarrassed about something that I really don't have any need to know and being refused access because either the police or the subject are embarrassed about something that I do have a reasonable need to know, then I'm fine with that.
But lacking the ability to make that distinction myself without having seen the footage myself, and having a lack of trusted disinterested parties who have seen it, I have to lean towards making it available. And yes, if I'm naked on the toilet and a cop busts in, I'm okay with that footage being released because I believe being able to prove whether the cop behaved properly is worth it.