They can just put in place technical measures to control all abuse of their services and all bots and then say they are not using any technical measures to specifically block hiQ.
That makes sense.... LinkedIn can allow HiQ to access the information, BUT employ rate-limits to make sure they can't generate more usage than a normal network with humans would, AND employ Captchas/Bot-prevention countermeasures on IP addresses suspected to be something different than the rest of the public.
If HiQ wants to hire an army of humans to manually transcribe data (without an unusually large number of requests from one network), then all the power to them.
If the data they're hosting is uncopyrightable, and it's freely available to the public, then yes.
The issue with scraping non-copyrightable data is that it is Theft of service: violations of terms users agree to in order to access the resource.
The owner of the server/website pays for processing time and bandwidth, AND the owner of the server DOES NOT HAVE TO provide a free-for-all --- everyone who owns a computer/network has a right to direct who can use the resources provided by their server/equipment and monthly ISP services, how, and in what manner.
Rate limits on page loads, bot detection and captchas on resources intended to be used by humans are commonplace for preventing bots from coming in and hogging resources, spamming, or mass-downloading things at the server owner's expense for purposes not useful to the owner of the server.
If users added their info, and made it public, it's not up to LinkedIn to decide what users want to protect.
It is not absolutely public. Users shared their information with LinkedIn, and possibly chose not to restrict it through privacy controls LinkedIn offers users, BUT LinkedIn themself gets to decide how "Public" their website actually is. That "Public" could very well mean only visible to users that registered and/or accepted some terms prior to viewing.
Satellites are still out there.... All Encrypted and inaccessible these days, because big corps. worked out they can make people pay serious $$$ for limited access.
I could not get most of these servers to load -- they were long ago murdered by the World Wide Web.
Try back 10 years ago in 2005, and you would likely find a LOT more of the 1994 stuff still working then.
I noticed in the more recent 5 or 6 years, a TON of old stuff finally vanished for once and for all.
This is the aging of the network though --- things go offline, and if the information didn't make it to Archive.org; I guess it's probably gone forever.
Sure freedom of speech is specifically limited to government
Where does this come from? NOTHING in the constitution says that Free Speech is a right that only the government must respect.
Only that the government is EXPLICITLY banned from abridging free speech in any way.
Private corporations are not required to Facilitate your speech, BUT there is nothing giving them the right to take unusual actions to suppress your speech.
Imagine for a thought experiment: All the grocery stores in town decide they don't like you because of something you posted on Facebook, so they each decide independently to ban you from their stores, just because of what you posted on the internet, and now you cannot buy any food -- and will starve to death. Next up, the local energy company sees your post and decides to turn off the lights to your house, because "We won't sell electricity to such nasty people."
You are now being deprived of life and liberty by corporations, BUT these actions are prejudicial, and you SHOULD be entitled to relief from this abuse.
There's nothing in the constitution to say that corporations have a secure right to make arbitrary decisions to refuse to deal with certain people based on the content of speech they made.
Deal with it! There are huge amount of women who are smarter than you! Really huge. A lot smarter.
So what? There exist a number of women AND men who are smarter than just about ANY person consistent with most of the population on ANY given subject.
By the way ability is SPECIFIC to subject, and "smartness" is irrelevent --- It is developed ability and experience coupled with drive and action that matters within the context of a specific job role.
You might want to look up the term "at-will employment," a term that I 100 percent guarantee you was in Damore's employment contract with Google.
Joke's on you, because I am familiar with the term, and it doesn't matter that it was in his contract.
Google was within its rights to terminate Damore for any reason or for no reason.
False. If federal law says that an employer may not retaliate, then they cannot retaliate. If the term'd employee shows some evidence that it was likely retaliation, then burden of proof will be on the employer to show that the action was not retaliation.
When all is said and done, Google should fire their lawyers that allowed them to make the statement of the reason they terminated their employee.
that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
He cited references that evidence this, AND it is extremely likely that he is 100% correct on the matters he discussed. When the truth is being ignored.... it is a good thing to point out the errors/falsehoods being assumed.
Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements
You are carrying an Ad Hominem fallacy. His background, work history, personal beliefs, etc, have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the arguments he has made either way. Arguments are to be judged based on the sources, and evidence related to the premises of the argument, and the principles of logic used to consistently evaluate arguments.
He was trying to open a dialogue about problems with the way things were being run at work. What he did and where he did it was entirely appropriate.
Also, this kind of thing is a legally PROTECTED act, and an Employer interfering with or retaliating against employees for engaging in this type of dialog violates federal law. Section 7 rights for Protected Concerted Activity under the NLRB prohibit employer retaliation over such speech, even if the employees are not uninized.
A few examples of protected concerted activities are:
Two or more employees discussing work-related issues beyond pay, such as safety concerns, with each other.
An employee speaking to an employer on behalf of one or more co-workers about improving workplace conditions.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7" of the Act.
Agree... It is easy to make noise but HARD to deliver high enough sound pressure to be a concern at high frequencies -- the higher frequency you go. It is possible, But it is going to require special design for the apparatus to not quickly break down and is thus not going to happen accidentally just from a defect in a standard transformer.
Would it be bad to retain the "must contain a letter" rule if the password is long enough?
Yes, because strong passwords don't need to use a letter, And if you estimate entropy PROPERLY, then there's no reason for the restriction --- it's just spurious.
Why the hell should I have to go to Washington DC every year to keep a relatively small income stream coming?
It needs to be worth at least enough to justify the taxpayer expenses involved. And you SHOULD be provided a local branch to visit in person within 200 miles ("reasonable travel"); if you are not close to Washington DC.
I mean; it is scary that such a device is capable of existing, and you can be physically attacked/damaged over time without noticing it.
It is a cruel sort of weapon victims have no chance of defending against with high potential of grave accidental collateral damage, so it should clearly be banned; same with any weapon using light outside human visible range with no visible warning.....
Also, is there some kind of monitoring system that can be installed, and portably carried that could detect such kind of devices in operation?
Tested by creating a new account on each website. Researchers attempted to create passwords with all letters (“aaaaaa”) or numbers (“111111”).
Traditional Complexity rules ARE bad. Dashlane has a product to sell, and I'm beginning to think dashlane themself is a bad actor, because of the PR promoting whatever they think websites should enforce upon their users to encourage them to use Dashlane's password manager product.
If course it wasn't seen. You don't carry anything electronic at Defcon. That executive is an idiot.
Agreed. Signing off on it by the executive is fait accomplit. Withdrawing permission the day of a conference is Not an option. The executive should be fired. Josh Schwartz and John Cramb should be reinstated AND publicly apologized to, AND each awarded a huge bonus for that bullshit.
There are things you just don't say or do, even if you think it's true.
Sometimes there are principles worth fighting for -- such as liberty and pursuit of the truth against evil and deception.
A great man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death," and then he died, but if he hadn't said those things, then we would all be slaves today; instead of a people with some freedoms, among the most important of those, the freedom of speech, and the ability to speak our minds without fear of being executed or having our livelihoods destroyed by an angry mob, whether that be the government or a collection of angry rabble, or Facebook users, etc.
I admire the guy for standing up for the empirical truth or what he believes to be the empirical truth; probably knowing the potential consequences to his career.
Frankly; I hope he takes them all to court -- fights it out to the end and wins. I also hope he finds people to support him in this crusade and help prevent total ruin in his life caused by the brainless authoritarian dogmatic left.
Costs money to implement. In the past the government has mandated these things, so let's just work on getting our legislatures to mandate that AML for emergency services be supported on cellular phones to be allowed to connect to the PSTN over the wireless spectrum assigned for cellular phone service.
Two 14 year terms from the date of publishing. You have to pay hard cash to renew it for the second 14 years.
I suggest ANNUAL renewal requirement. And: An ORIGINAL AUTHOR MUST COME IN PERSON to sign the renewal and pay a $50 fee from cash then and there On each individual item, with a limit of 2 works per visit and 3 visits per day -- No corporate representative (An actual person who was a principle direct creator of the work). No attorney, no appointed agent, unless the person proves they are indisposed due to a documented serious illness making them bedridden or permanent incapacity of themself or immediate family, or their death within the past 15 years, and the agent is their personally chosen representative on all individual matters not just copyright.
This allows a PERSON to keep their copyright for the rest of their natural life as provided currently. But it will be inconvenient for corporations, because they must retain the original author or an agreement with one or more principle authors who originally made each work to keep renewing the registrations.
I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content.
That IS important, but there is another issue: Infrastructure and delivery.... Software on my set-top box devices ONLY supports Netflix, Youtube, and some other standardized apps.
So If I need to use a new streaming service, then you're basically saying I must chunk my set-top boxes and spend a few hundred $$$ on new ones...... that or stream from a media server such as Plex.
But if I go through all the trouble of having a dedicated media server, then shouldn't I just go the rest of the way: Add bulk storage, and fine the cheapest way possible to get video content to put on my local storage?
Just because they want to consider a hypothetical scenario does not mean there's a scientific basis for it. Of course 10 degree C increase is possible in the event of some dramatic natural events.
Such wild swing in temperature anywhere near +6 C, let alone more, within the next few centuries is extremely unlikely, however.
Slashdot Mirror
They can just put in place technical measures to control all abuse of their services and all bots and then say they are not using any technical measures to specifically block hiQ.
That makes sense.... LinkedIn can allow HiQ to access the information, BUT employ rate-limits to make sure they can't generate more usage than a normal network with humans would, AND employ Captchas/Bot-prevention countermeasures on IP addresses suspected to be something different than the rest of the public.
If HiQ wants to hire an army of humans to manually transcribe data (without an unusually large number of requests from one network), then all the power to them.
If the data they're hosting is uncopyrightable, and it's freely available to the public, then yes.
The issue with scraping non-copyrightable data is that it is Theft of service: violations of terms users agree to in order to access the resource.
The owner of the server/website pays for processing time and bandwidth, AND the owner of the server DOES NOT HAVE TO provide a free-for-all --- everyone who owns a computer/network has a right to direct who can use the resources provided by their server/equipment and monthly ISP services, how, and in what manner.
Rate limits on page loads, bot detection and captchas on resources intended to be used by humans are commonplace for preventing bots from coming in and hogging resources, spamming, or mass-downloading things at the server owner's expense for purposes not useful to the owner of the server.
If users added their info, and made it public, it's not up to LinkedIn to decide what users want to protect.
It is not absolutely public. Users shared their information with LinkedIn, and possibly chose not to restrict it through privacy controls LinkedIn offers users, BUT LinkedIn themself gets to decide how "Public" their website actually is. That "Public" could very well mean only visible to users that registered and/or accepted some terms prior to viewing.
Satellites are still out there.... All Encrypted and inaccessible these days, because
big corps. worked out they can make people pay serious $$$ for limited access.
I could not get most of these servers to load -- they were long ago murdered by the World Wide Web.
Try back 10 years ago in 2005, and you would likely find a LOT more of the 1994 stuff still working then.
I noticed in the more recent 5 or 6 years, a TON of old stuff finally vanished for once and for all.
This is the aging of the network though --- things go offline, and if the information didn't make it to Archive.org; I guess it's probably gone forever.
Sure freedom of speech is specifically limited to government
Where does this come from? NOTHING in the constitution says that Free Speech is a right that only the government must respect.
Only that the government is EXPLICITLY banned from abridging free speech in any way.
Private corporations are not required to Facilitate your speech, BUT there is nothing giving them the right to take unusual actions to suppress your speech.
Imagine for a thought experiment: All the grocery stores in town decide they don't like you because of something you posted on Facebook, so they each decide independently to ban you from their stores, just because of what you posted on the internet, and now you cannot buy any food -- and will starve to death. Next up, the local energy company sees your post and decides to turn off the lights to your house, because "We won't sell electricity to such nasty people."
You are now being deprived of life and liberty by corporations, BUT these actions are prejudicial, and you SHOULD be entitled to relief from this abuse.
There's nothing in the constitution to say that corporations have a secure right to make arbitrary decisions to refuse to deal with certain people based on the content of speech they made.
Deal with it! There are huge amount of women who are smarter than you! Really huge. A lot smarter.
So what? There exist a number of women AND men who are smarter than just about ANY person consistent with most of the population on ANY given subject.
By the way ability is SPECIFIC to subject, and "smartness" is irrelevent --- It is developed ability and experience coupled with drive and action that matters within the context of a specific job role.
You might want to look up the term "at-will employment," a term that I 100 percent guarantee you was in Damore's employment contract with Google.
Joke's on you, because I am familiar with the term, and it doesn't matter that it was in his contract.
Google was within its rights to terminate Damore for any reason or for no reason.
False. If federal law says that an employer may not retaliate, then they cannot retaliate.
If the term'd employee shows some evidence that it was likely retaliation, then burden of proof will be on the employer to show that the action was not retaliation.
When all is said and done, Google should fire their lawyers that allowed them to make the statement of the reason they terminated their employee.
that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
He cited references that evidence this, AND it is extremely likely that he is 100% correct on the matters he discussed.
When the truth is being ignored.... it is a good thing to point out the errors/falsehoods being assumed.
Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements
You are carrying an Ad Hominem fallacy. His background, work history, personal beliefs, etc, have absolutely
nothing to do with the validity of the arguments he has made either way. Arguments are to be judged based on
the sources, and evidence related to the premises of the argument, and the principles of logic used to consistently evaluate arguments.
He was trying to open a dialogue about problems with the way things were being run at work. What he did and where he did it was entirely appropriate.
Also, this kind of thing is a legally PROTECTED act, and an Employer interfering with or retaliating against employees for engaging in this type of dialog violates federal law. Section 7 rights for Protected Concerted Activity under the NLRB prohibit employer retaliation over
such speech, even if the employees are not uninized.
And Employee Rights
they can't blame anyone besides themselves for problems the user faces.
I guess that all that is left, then is to deny deny deny, and if someone finds errors, then their testing methods must be broken.
Agree... It is easy to make noise but HARD to deliver high enough sound pressure to be a concern at high frequencies -- the higher frequency you go. It is possible, But it is going to require special design for the apparatus to not quickly break down and is thus not going to happen accidentally just from a defect in a standard transformer.
Would it be bad to retain the "must contain a letter" rule if the password is long enough?
Yes, because strong passwords don't need to use a letter, And if you estimate entropy PROPERLY, then
there's no reason for the restriction --- it's just spurious.
Why the hell should I have to go to Washington DC every year to keep a relatively small income stream coming?
It needs to be worth at least enough to justify the taxpayer expenses involved.
And you SHOULD be provided a local branch to visit in person within 200 miles ("reasonable travel"); if you are not close to Washington DC.
I mean; it is scary that such a device is capable of existing, and you can be physically attacked/damaged over time without noticing it.
It is a cruel sort of weapon victims have no chance of defending against with high potential of grave accidental collateral damage, so it should clearly be banned; same with any weapon using light outside human visible range with no visible warning.....
Also, is there some kind of monitoring system that can be installed, and portably carried that could detect such kind of devices in operation?
It's not a problem to rainbow table that. What kills rainbow tables is strong salting.
Traditional Complexity rules ARE bad. Dashlane has a product to sell, and I'm beginning to think dashlane themself is a bad actor, because of the PR promoting whatever they think websites should enforce upon their users to encourage them to use Dashlane's password manager product.
If course it wasn't seen. You don't carry anything electronic at Defcon. That executive is an idiot.
Agreed. Signing off on it by the executive is fait accomplit. Withdrawing permission the day of a conference is Not an option. The executive should be fired. Josh Schwartz and John Cramb should be reinstated AND publicly apologized to, AND each awarded a huge bonus for that bullshit.
There are things you just don't say or do, even if you think it's true.
Sometimes there are principles worth fighting for -- such as liberty and pursuit of the truth against evil and deception.
A great man once said "Give me liberty, or give me death," and then he died, but if he hadn't said those things,
then we would all be slaves today; instead of a people with some freedoms, among the most important of those,
the freedom of speech, and the ability to speak our minds without fear of being executed or having our livelihoods
destroyed by an angry mob, whether that be the government or a collection of angry rabble, or Facebook users, etc.
I admire the guy for standing up for the empirical truth or what he believes to be the empirical truth; probably knowing the potential consequences to his career.
Frankly; I hope he takes them all to court -- fights it out to the end and wins. I also hope he finds people to support him in this crusade and help prevent total ruin in his life caused by the brainless authoritarian dogmatic left.
Costs money to implement. In the past the government has mandated these things,
so let's just work on getting our legislatures to mandate that AML for emergency services be
supported on cellular phones to be allowed to connect to the PSTN over the wireless spectrum assigned for cellular phone service.
Two 14 year terms from the date of publishing. You have to pay hard cash to renew it for the second 14 years.
I suggest ANNUAL renewal requirement. And: An ORIGINAL AUTHOR MUST COME IN PERSON to sign the renewal and pay a $50 fee from cash then and there On each individual item, with a limit of 2 works per visit and 3 visits per day -- No corporate representative (An actual person who was a principle direct creator of the work). No attorney, no appointed agent, unless the person proves they are indisposed due to a documented serious illness making them bedridden or permanent incapacity of themself or immediate family, or their death within the past 15 years, and the agent is their personally chosen representative on all individual matters not just copyright.
This allows a PERSON to keep their copyright for the rest of their natural life as provided currently.
But it will be inconvenient for corporations, because they must retain the original author or an agreement with one or more principle authors who originally made each work to keep renewing the registrations.
I am not a huge fan of paying multiple companies monthly to watch their content.
That IS important, but there is another issue: Infrastructure and delivery.... Software on my set-top box devices ONLY supports Netflix, Youtube, and some other standardized apps.
So If I need to use a new streaming service, then you're basically saying I must chunk my set-top boxes and spend a few hundred $$$ on new ones...... that or stream from a media server such as Plex.
But if I go through all the trouble of having a dedicated media server, then shouldn't I just go the rest of the way: Add bulk storage, and fine the cheapest way possible to get video content to put on my local storage?
Just because they want to consider a hypothetical scenario does not mean there's a scientific basis for it. Of course 10 degree C increase is possible in the event of some dramatic natural events.
Such wild swing in temperature anywhere near +6 C, let alone more, within the next few centuries is extremely unlikely, however.