My standard response to people cheering for new government powers (including NSA spying) is: Would you want these powers in the hands of someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you? If the person is a Democrat, imagine President Donald Trump with those powers. If the person is a Republican, imagine President Hillary Clinton with those powers. Rarely is the person fine with this situation, though they are perfectly willing for someone who shares their political philosophy to have those powers.
This here is a real-life example of that response. These people are just fine with the NSA spying on people, but once that spying turns on them they find it a violation of their rights. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't declare that "all people like me are special and exempt from X." You either are for the NSA spying on everyone including you or you oppose the NSA spying.
Here's hoping their outrage isn't short lived and instead turns into a swell of political opposition to NSA spying.
If you want to require Google to preview all videos before uploading them, you're going to also have to require all websites to preview everything users upload - including comments. How does Slashdot know that this comment of mine isn't copyrighted by someone else? Maybe I'm taking their words and posting them here without the copyright owner's permission. Should Slashdot preview all comments before allowing them to be posted? How would the Slashdot editors know whether this comment is from a copyrighted work or not and whether or not it was used with the proper permissions?
The casting rolls show that he'll be in the next movie. Of course, it could be as a flashback of some sort or a memory (not a Force ghost, but a trick of Kylo Ren's mind that torments him). I highly doubt we'll see him stroll into a scene set in the present and be actually alive.
I wish this were so but politicians will call for China to not have encryption keys and then turn around and demand that the US government have all the encryption keys without any sense of cognitive dissonance. Many of these politicians will continue on to rail against big government while still arguing that government should have back doors into all encryption.
They've slid down the slope a bit and are now saying that the TSA is only doing this to protect against terrorists and that you're free not to fly if you don't like it.
When the TSA expands to other methods of transportation, they'll slide down the slope a bit more and defend the TSA (and the government) with new arguments all the while denying that we are all sliding down the slope.
And he also thinks this somehow hurts the music industry? Private copies (not shared with anyone) are completely legal. I'm sure the RIAA would love for it to be "you bought the MP3 for that one device and need to buy it again for devices 2, 3, 4, etc, but this isn't the case right now. If I buy a CD and rip it (or buy the MP3 from a place like Amazon), I can copy it a million times all over my computers, phones, tablets, etc and there's nothing the music industry can do about it.
Now, if he had set up some sort of "automated dev/null file sharing network" where the system downloaded torrents and automatically deleted them, he might actually be able to make a statement. But essentially saying "I copied the file and deleted it a million times" says nothing except perhaps that you have too much free time.
All to prevent what was a known weak spot back in the 70s or earlier, and could have been fixed by a simple secure door between the cockpit and the rest of the plane. El Al implemented that long long ago, and that alone would have stopped 9/11 cold.
Exactly this. We could roll back all airport/airline security to pre-911 levels except for the locked, reinforced cockpit doors and the changed mentality of passengers (pre-911 hijacking meant you went to Cuba for a few days and are unharmed if you stay quiet, post-911 hijacking means you die if you don't fight back). Doing so wouldn't reduce our security by a measurable amount, but would restore a large amount of our liberties. (You know, those things the terrorists apparently hate and that we're trying to protect.)
Also, there are regular rumblings from the security theater proponents about how we need to expand the TSA to cover trains, stadiums, etc. We're one "fear event" (either a terrorist attack or a hyped up "near miss") from other methods of transportation and gathering falling under TSA "protection." How long until we're being told "if you don't want to be strip searched then just don't drive across state lines?"
They've shown how body scans miss weaponry on people testing the system. (These are professionals. Do NOT bring a gun to the TSA line and then say "well, I was just testing security.") If the scanners can't detect weaponry regularly, how would it find an SD card? As a followup, why would they need to find an SD card? Yes, the data on it might be a threat, but the SD card itself isn't a threat to the flight or the people on it.
The subject of a photograph doesn't have rights to the content of a photograph, but can determine how it's used. If I take a photo of you walking down the street, you can't demand ownership of said photo or order that it be destroyed. However, you can refuse to allow me to sell it for commercial use (e.g. to an ad agency to sell a product) and if I do so without your signed consent you can sue me.
So let's say we make a Great Firewall of America that stops terrorist videos from being viewed here. How we do it doesn't matter right now, but we do it. Mission accomplished, right?
No. Because it will get out that someone in RANDOM_COUNTRY can view those videos and become radicalized*. The politicians will demand that we fix this problem with our firewall. Never mind that someone from outside the US viewing a video hosted outside of the US wouldn't have anything to do with US-based Internet services. The "fix" will be to use US political might to force other countries to block/take down anything that could host a terrorist video.
Of course, then this mandate will expand to other types of videos/content. Before you know it, posting something online will carry a "does this stray too close to the current 'banned subjects' line and thus will be taken down" worry.
You don't give governments an inch to keep them from taking a mile. They take an inch as a "compromise" and then they take another inch. And another one. And another one, etc.
* Side note: some seem to act as though watching a video alone will infect them with "Radical Islam." If you could do this then every business in the world would "infect" videos with the desire to buy their products. Imagine if every McDonald's ad filled you with an irresistible urge to eat your next meal at McDonald's. The reality of the situation is that there are many factors that lead to someone "becoming radicalized." The videos are just one component of a larger picture.
Do you really think a politician that would make a "Great Firewall of America" would stop at that? Next, it would be that "the terrorists" and "terrorist sympathizers" are in America posting online trying to radicalize our children. So we need the government to look at every packet sent to make sure it's not a terrorist-packet. Yes, the NSA already tries doing this, but the politicians will push to have it 100% legal and without any checks on their power. Because checks are restrictions and you can't restrict the police in doing their duty or you're un-American, right?
Both the GOP candidates and Hillary Clinton have called for encryption to be hobbled because it "enables terrorists to talk without law enforcement being able to read the messages." Never mind that normal people use encryption to communicate without criminals getting involved (e.g. online shopping). Never mind that recent terrorist attacks were brought about by people communicating without encryption (e.g. plain old SMS in the Paris attacks). Never mind that their proposed "government only back door" would quickly be used by criminals and that terrorists/criminals would use currently available encryption without any built-in back doors. They want the power to crack encryption and won't accept anything less than total control.
This isn't an either/or situation. "Shutting down portions of the Internet" doesn't mean they leave the rest alone. It's an attack on online freedoms and, sadly, it's coming from major candidates on both sides of the aisle.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I'll be voting third party.)
Longer Answer: Reporters know "Scientists have found that X is weakly correlated with an increase in Y. More studies will clarify whether this is correlation, causation, or whether the first study was incorrect." won't generate views (or sell papers for the old school newspaper folks in the house). Instead "X found to cause Y" is a much better headline for generating more views. Even better is clickbait like "You won't believe the horrible things X has been found to cause!" So reporters go for the most sensational spin on the scientific study in order to get more views.
The side effect of this is a mistrust of scientists who "can't make up their minds." After all, today it's being reported that "X directly leads to Y, scientists 100% sure." Tomorrow, though, the reporting says "X shown to have no effect on Y!" The actual details of the studies don't matter. It doesn't matter that this is how science works (someone tests a theory, proves or disproves it, and then others try to replicate it). It doesn't matter that science "changing its mind" isn't a weakness, but a strength of science. All that matters is that the headlines changed so scientists must not know what they're doing. Luckily, the local creationist/anti-vax proponent/homeopath/etc says they know what's what and they insist that they would never change their story.
Given that this kept happening and that the system is run by a Clinton supporter, I also wonder if the "firewall glitches" were for the Clinton campaign to gain access to the Sanders campaign's records. But when Bernie's staff member did the same thing (in an attempt to see how vulnerable they were), they got smacked down. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this whole setup sounds fishy.
Also, when Trump was being interviewed about Putin praising him, the interviewer pointed out how Putin kills journalists who disagree with him. Trump then proceeded to praise Putin: "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country.... He's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader."
Apparently, to Trump, killing the people who disagree with you makes you a strong and powerful leader.
As a victim of Identity Theft, I know first hand that you can't avoid the "stolen personal data" portion of Identity Theft. Somewhere, someone is going to store your SSN, DOB, and other information in an insecure database or some disgruntled employee will grab your information (along with a thousand other people's) and sell it to someone for some extra cash. It's sad, but it's getting to be nearly a certainty. (13.1 million victims in 2015, 12.7 million in 2014.)
LifeLock isn't real protection once someone gets your data. To really protect yourself, you need to freeze your credit files. This prevents anyone (you or the identity thieves) from opening new lines of credit on your account. Of course, that also means that you can't open that credit card or refinance that loan without first thawing your credit file (and paying each of the three major credit agencies). Still, it's better than having a collections agency knock down your door because "you" ran up $10,000 in charges and then didn't pay the bill.
Actually, the question the cable companies should examine is "who would make the cable companies pay the least?"
Before, the content owners seemed content to demand names and three strikes policies. Now, they might demand cash from ISPs for each alleged pirate on the ISP's systems. Just for purely selfish reasons, the cable companies should support the customers so that the ISPs can't get money from anyone and everyone based on mere allegations.
Of course, if allegations equals conviction now, I'd like to allege that BMG stole $1 million from me. Since my allegation was made, it must be true which means BMG has to pay me (*puts pinky finger to lip*) one MILLION dollars.
I'm actually going to wait a week and see it on Christmas Day. We're Jewish and so Christmas tends to be That-Day-When-We-Can't-Go-Out-And-Do-Anything-Because-Everything-Is-Closed. Except for Chinese restaurants. Yes, it's a stereotype but we do go out for Chinese food on Christmas. Star Wars and Chinese food means I'm actually looking forward to Christmas Day!
And now I just got a mental image of Jar-Jar turning to the Dark Side, becoming Darth Stimpy, and Kylo Ren telling him "You eeediot!" I don't know if this is awesome or just sad.
There are plenty of towns that don't get wired, broadband Internet access from any provider. (Small capped and expensive wireless isn't a good alternative and DSL is on its way out with ISPs actively trying to get rid of their DSL customers.) If a town doesn't have Internet access and the big ISPs in the area refuse to provide access (because they deem the town "unprofitable") then why shouldn't the town be able to set up their own municipal broadband effort? (Provided the town votes on it and approves the measure.)
So yes, 15 year olds will still access sites which require those by providing bogus information. But then, the value of the information is nil, and companies themselves will set up measures to weed out bogus information because that would diminish the value of their databases to potential customers.
Except they'd likely provide all true information except for their date of birth. So while the "People aged X-Y like this" metrics would be useless, the "this person likes Z so show ads for related products" would still work fine.
The big ISPs don't like competition. Competition means they need to lower prices and improve service. Compare the offerings of any of the big ISPs in a location with Google Fiber versus an area without Google Fiber. If the big ISPs remain as monopolies in their areas then they can charge as much as they want for horrible service and they can be assured that people will pay because they'll have no choice.
Oh, and the USPS is horrible too. Public libraries aren't, mostly because there really isn't anything about running a public library that could conceivably be screwed up.
The USPS delivers my mail every single weekday (and Saturday) without fail and at a consistent time. I can be assured that shipping something via the post office means it will get to its destination in a set time (depending on what level of service I pay for). I've had nothing but good service at the post office. Contrast this to UPS which drops packages off on my doorstep and never rings the doorbell. Even big, expensive looking packages. Someone could swipe the package off my front step and I'd never know it was ever there.
As for public libraries, how long until book publishers claim that libraries result in lost sales (because I'm borrowing the latest book instead of buying a copy) and must be shut down?
Slashdot Mirror
My standard response to people cheering for new government powers (including NSA spying) is: Would you want these powers in the hands of someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you? If the person is a Democrat, imagine President Donald Trump with those powers. If the person is a Republican, imagine President Hillary Clinton with those powers. Rarely is the person fine with this situation, though they are perfectly willing for someone who shares their political philosophy to have those powers.
This here is a real-life example of that response. These people are just fine with the NSA spying on people, but once that spying turns on them they find it a violation of their rights. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't declare that "all people like me are special and exempt from X." You either are for the NSA spying on everyone including you or you oppose the NSA spying.
Here's hoping their outrage isn't short lived and instead turns into a swell of political opposition to NSA spying.
If you want to require Google to preview all videos before uploading them, you're going to also have to require all websites to preview everything users upload - including comments. How does Slashdot know that this comment of mine isn't copyrighted by someone else? Maybe I'm taking their words and posting them here without the copyright owner's permission. Should Slashdot preview all comments before allowing them to be posted? How would the Slashdot editors know whether this comment is from a copyrighted work or not and whether or not it was used with the proper permissions?
My only problem with Ren was that, with his mask removed, looked like a young Severus Snape.
I half expected him to say: "Well, if it isn't Ren. Our. new. celebrity."
The casting rolls show that he'll be in the next movie. Of course, it could be as a flashback of some sort or a memory (not a Force ghost, but a trick of Kylo Ren's mind that torments him). I highly doubt we'll see him stroll into a scene set in the present and be actually alive.
I wish this were so but politicians will call for China to not have encryption keys and then turn around and demand that the US government have all the encryption keys without any sense of cognitive dissonance. Many of these politicians will continue on to rail against big government while still arguing that government should have back doors into all encryption.
Step 2 will be banning any encryption where the company doesn't hold the keys (and thus can't give them to the government).
They've slid down the slope a bit and are now saying that the TSA is only doing this to protect against terrorists and that you're free not to fly if you don't like it.
When the TSA expands to other methods of transportation, they'll slide down the slope a bit more and defend the TSA (and the government) with new arguments all the while denying that we are all sliding down the slope.
And he also thinks this somehow hurts the music industry? Private copies (not shared with anyone) are completely legal. I'm sure the RIAA would love for it to be "you bought the MP3 for that one device and need to buy it again for devices 2, 3, 4, etc, but this isn't the case right now. If I buy a CD and rip it (or buy the MP3 from a place like Amazon), I can copy it a million times all over my computers, phones, tablets, etc and there's nothing the music industry can do about it.
Now, if he had set up some sort of "automated dev/null file sharing network" where the system downloaded torrents and automatically deleted them, he might actually be able to make a statement. But essentially saying "I copied the file and deleted it a million times" says nothing except perhaps that you have too much free time.
Exactly this. We could roll back all airport/airline security to pre-911 levels except for the locked, reinforced cockpit doors and the changed mentality of passengers (pre-911 hijacking meant you went to Cuba for a few days and are unharmed if you stay quiet, post-911 hijacking means you die if you don't fight back). Doing so wouldn't reduce our security by a measurable amount, but would restore a large amount of our liberties. (You know, those things the terrorists apparently hate and that we're trying to protect.)
Also, there are regular rumblings from the security theater proponents about how we need to expand the TSA to cover trains, stadiums, etc. We're one "fear event" (either a terrorist attack or a hyped up "near miss") from other methods of transportation and gathering falling under TSA "protection." How long until we're being told "if you don't want to be strip searched then just don't drive across state lines?"
They've shown how body scans miss weaponry on people testing the system. (These are professionals. Do NOT bring a gun to the TSA line and then say "well, I was just testing security.") If the scanners can't detect weaponry regularly, how would it find an SD card? As a followup, why would they need to find an SD card? Yes, the data on it might be a threat, but the SD card itself isn't a threat to the flight or the people on it.
The subject of a photograph doesn't have rights to the content of a photograph, but can determine how it's used. If I take a photo of you walking down the street, you can't demand ownership of said photo or order that it be destroyed. However, you can refuse to allow me to sell it for commercial use (e.g. to an ad agency to sell a product) and if I do so without your signed consent you can sue me.
So let's say we make a Great Firewall of America that stops terrorist videos from being viewed here. How we do it doesn't matter right now, but we do it. Mission accomplished, right?
No. Because it will get out that someone in RANDOM_COUNTRY can view those videos and become radicalized*. The politicians will demand that we fix this problem with our firewall. Never mind that someone from outside the US viewing a video hosted outside of the US wouldn't have anything to do with US-based Internet services. The "fix" will be to use US political might to force other countries to block/take down anything that could host a terrorist video.
Of course, then this mandate will expand to other types of videos/content. Before you know it, posting something online will carry a "does this stray too close to the current 'banned subjects' line and thus will be taken down" worry.
You don't give governments an inch to keep them from taking a mile. They take an inch as a "compromise" and then they take another inch. And another one. And another one, etc.
* Side note: some seem to act as though watching a video alone will infect them with "Radical Islam." If you could do this then every business in the world would "infect" videos with the desire to buy their products. Imagine if every McDonald's ad filled you with an irresistible urge to eat your next meal at McDonald's. The reality of the situation is that there are many factors that lead to someone "becoming radicalized." The videos are just one component of a larger picture.
Do you really think a politician that would make a "Great Firewall of America" would stop at that? Next, it would be that "the terrorists" and "terrorist sympathizers" are in America posting online trying to radicalize our children. So we need the government to look at every packet sent to make sure it's not a terrorist-packet. Yes, the NSA already tries doing this, but the politicians will push to have it 100% legal and without any checks on their power. Because checks are restrictions and you can't restrict the police in doing their duty or you're un-American, right?
Both the GOP candidates and Hillary Clinton have called for encryption to be hobbled because it "enables terrorists to talk without law enforcement being able to read the messages." Never mind that normal people use encryption to communicate without criminals getting involved (e.g. online shopping). Never mind that recent terrorist attacks were brought about by people communicating without encryption (e.g. plain old SMS in the Paris attacks). Never mind that their proposed "government only back door" would quickly be used by criminals and that terrorists/criminals would use currently available encryption without any built-in back doors. They want the power to crack encryption and won't accept anything less than total control.
This isn't an either/or situation. "Shutting down portions of the Internet" doesn't mean they leave the rest alone. It's an attack on online freedoms and, sadly, it's coming from major candidates on both sides of the aisle.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I'll be voting third party.)
Short Answer: Obligatory PHD Comics: The Science New Cycle
Longer Answer: Reporters know "Scientists have found that X is weakly correlated with an increase in Y. More studies will clarify whether this is correlation, causation, or whether the first study was incorrect." won't generate views (or sell papers for the old school newspaper folks in the house). Instead "X found to cause Y" is a much better headline for generating more views. Even better is clickbait like "You won't believe the horrible things X has been found to cause!" So reporters go for the most sensational spin on the scientific study in order to get more views.
The side effect of this is a mistrust of scientists who "can't make up their minds." After all, today it's being reported that "X directly leads to Y, scientists 100% sure." Tomorrow, though, the reporting says "X shown to have no effect on Y!" The actual details of the studies don't matter. It doesn't matter that this is how science works (someone tests a theory, proves or disproves it, and then others try to replicate it). It doesn't matter that science "changing its mind" isn't a weakness, but a strength of science. All that matters is that the headlines changed so scientists must not know what they're doing. Luckily, the local creationist/anti-vax proponent/homeopath/etc says they know what's what and they insist that they would never change their story.
Given that this kept happening and that the system is run by a Clinton supporter, I also wonder if the "firewall glitches" were for the Clinton campaign to gain access to the Sanders campaign's records. But when Bernie's staff member did the same thing (in an attempt to see how vulnerable they were), they got smacked down. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this whole setup sounds fishy.
Also, when Trump was being interviewed about Putin praising him, the interviewer pointed out how Putin kills journalists who disagree with him. Trump then proceeded to praise Putin: "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country. ... He's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader."
Apparently, to Trump, killing the people who disagree with you makes you a strong and powerful leader.
As a victim of Identity Theft, I know first hand that you can't avoid the "stolen personal data" portion of Identity Theft. Somewhere, someone is going to store your SSN, DOB, and other information in an insecure database or some disgruntled employee will grab your information (along with a thousand other people's) and sell it to someone for some extra cash. It's sad, but it's getting to be nearly a certainty. (13.1 million victims in 2015, 12.7 million in 2014.)
LifeLock isn't real protection once someone gets your data. To really protect yourself, you need to freeze your credit files. This prevents anyone (you or the identity thieves) from opening new lines of credit on your account. Of course, that also means that you can't open that credit card or refinance that loan without first thawing your credit file (and paying each of the three major credit agencies). Still, it's better than having a collections agency knock down your door because "you" ran up $10,000 in charges and then didn't pay the bill.
Actually, the question the cable companies should examine is "who would make the cable companies pay the least?"
Before, the content owners seemed content to demand names and three strikes policies. Now, they might demand cash from ISPs for each alleged pirate on the ISP's systems. Just for purely selfish reasons, the cable companies should support the customers so that the ISPs can't get money from anyone and everyone based on mere allegations.
Of course, if allegations equals conviction now, I'd like to allege that BMG stole $1 million from me. Since my allegation was made, it must be true which means BMG has to pay me (*puts pinky finger to lip*) one MILLION dollars.
I'm actually going to wait a week and see it on Christmas Day. We're Jewish and so Christmas tends to be That-Day-When-We-Can't-Go-Out-And-Do-Anything-Because-Everything-Is-Closed. Except for Chinese restaurants. Yes, it's a stereotype but we do go out for Chinese food on Christmas. Star Wars and Chinese food means I'm actually looking forward to Christmas Day!
And now I just got a mental image of Jar-Jar turning to the Dark Side, becoming Darth Stimpy, and Kylo Ren telling him "You eeediot!" I don't know if this is awesome or just sad.
There are plenty of towns that don't get wired, broadband Internet access from any provider. (Small capped and expensive wireless isn't a good alternative and DSL is on its way out with ISPs actively trying to get rid of their DSL customers.) If a town doesn't have Internet access and the big ISPs in the area refuse to provide access (because they deem the town "unprofitable") then why shouldn't the town be able to set up their own municipal broadband effort? (Provided the town votes on it and approves the measure.)
Except they'd likely provide all true information except for their date of birth. So while the "People aged X-Y like this" metrics would be useless, the "this person likes Z so show ads for related products" would still work fine.
The big ISPs don't like competition. Competition means they need to lower prices and improve service. Compare the offerings of any of the big ISPs in a location with Google Fiber versus an area without Google Fiber. If the big ISPs remain as monopolies in their areas then they can charge as much as they want for horrible service and they can be assured that people will pay because they'll have no choice.
The USPS delivers my mail every single weekday (and Saturday) without fail and at a consistent time. I can be assured that shipping something via the post office means it will get to its destination in a set time (depending on what level of service I pay for). I've had nothing but good service at the post office. Contrast this to UPS which drops packages off on my doorstep and never rings the doorbell. Even big, expensive looking packages. Someone could swipe the package off my front step and I'd never know it was ever there.
As for public libraries, how long until book publishers claim that libraries result in lost sales (because I'm borrowing the latest book instead of buying a copy) and must be shut down?