The problem here is that it's incumbent vs incumbent.
Nope, you misunderstood.
I'm lucky. [...] should my provider try anything funny I'm gone before he's done
Yes, you are lucky to have a choice of competing service-providers. My argument is, government regulation reduces competition, making all people less lucky and some — completely unlucky.
Without Network Neutrality there is nothing to prevent Verizon from [...]
Nothing other than my switching to XFinity or someone else available in my area, you mean?
So of course Amazon and others have a financial stake in this.
Point is, they are not "little".
The "little guy" does, too, since they're the ones who will end up paying more for inferior service at the end of the day.
The single means of improving quality and lowering prices is competition — nothing else. It is exactly this threat of my switching to XFinity, that's the reason, I now pay FiOS $10 less per month for 2.5 times the bandwidth compared to 5 years ago.
Imagine, for example, if the major ISPs were all already offering video hosting and streaming services before YouTube was a thing...
Are you saying, YouTube became a thing after 2015? Seriously?.. Really?..
competition increased and telephone service prices (especially long distance) dropped significantly
That happened before 1995 and was due to AT&T losing its monopoly — the rise of competition (MCI and Sprint) was what lowered prices and improved quality. And I would know, in the early 90ies we just immigrated and were calling friends and family back in Europe quite often.
Technology giants like Amazon, Spotify, Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter
We are repeatedlytold, "net neutrality protects the little guy" — a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
scrap the open internet protections installed in 2015 under the Obama administration
OMG, how did we live in 2014?..
Those consumer protections mean providers such as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon are prevented from blocking or slowing down access to the web.
Translation: owners of the networking equipment and cables are prevented from doing what they want with their property. War is peace. Regulations are liberty.
I'm having a hard time seeing how you're managing to draw an equivalence between the government being forbidden to stop you from filming a cop, and you being allowed to kill someone without repercussions just because you filmed it
This whole thread is about an illegal activity (such as disobeying a police officer's otherwise lawful order) suddenly becoming legal, when it is done to record something.
It appears that for some reason the UMCJ has a whole hell of a lot to say about what makes an order unlawful.
And here we finally come to my point — the police's order to disperse in general and/or to stop recording in particular was unlawful on its own, the cops should not have have issued it, the citizens didn't have to comply with it, and the First Amendment has nothing to do with it. It should not matter, whether I am recording anything or just watching the events — but, according to the court and you, it does.
That's the part that worries me greatly.
For the record, I'm pro-gun.
Whatever. The glaring hypocrisy, whereby the First Amendment is stretched in all directions and is continuously reinterpreted to become the fount of more and more rights, while the Second is ignored even on the matters and issues it obviously covered from its very beginning (such as the carrying of knives and brass knuckles), should be keeping you (and the ACLU) up at night. But does not...
Why should they be protected when they have nothing to do with recording things for news?
"News"? Who said anything about "news"? We are talking about speech and press here. If it is my pleasure to talk about murder and/or write an article about it, according to this ruling, my actual murdering someone is protected by the First Amendment as long as I duly record it.
No, it is an unlawful order
Why? What makes it "unlawful"?
Because conservatives are too busy fondling their guns to form a Conservative Civil Liberties Union
This is not a "Conservative" issue — if you (and ACLU) weren't too busy fondling your hypocrisy, you would've defended all articles of the Bill of Rights equally.
I despise Calibri. About half the emails I receive at work use it
I despite people/software, which prescribe, what font the remote recipient is supposed to use to view your messages. Stick to the content, not presentation.
Oh, and if your web-site insists on visitor loading and using particular fonts (except, maybe, for the icon-collections), you should kill yourself too./rant
You missed mine. Yes, forcing people to — and even killing them, when they wouldn't — stop doing bad things may be useful and desirable. Indeed, we do lock up criminals depriving them of all sorts of freedoms.
But offering stuff for sale to willing buyers spending their own money voluntarily is not a crime and is not wrong — quite the opposite. Therefore, your attempt at a counter-example failed. Remember to logout.
To me this is related tightly to why Elon Musk has publicly broken up with Trump over "climate". If, as Trump thinks, climate is not really a big concern and the government will stop paying scientists to say, that it is, Tesla becomes just another car — and an expensive one at that...
It used to be, to get a proper (browser-recognized) certificate, the server's owner had to prove to someone already trusted by the browser, that they are a legitimate business. Getting a cert costed some money, because the Certificate Authority actually attempted to verify things.
Let's Encrypt neither promises nor makes any such attempts, but the browsers treat certificates signed by them the same way they treat all others.
Maybe, there should be some sort of premium tier for certificates? Something that would allow CAs to charge more in exchange for actually checking the server-owner's legitimacy?
And then, is the question of trusting Let's Encrypt to not provide a back door to someone with enough money and/or other means of persuasion... That question, of course, applies to all CAs, but a free one would have fewer resources to defend themselves against any such pressure (whether its source is legal or criminal)...
Because the law can not predict every situation, police officers have the authority to order people around as they see fit (this ability is what attracts an unhealthy number of people to become pigs in the first place). When so ordered, you must obey — or you can be charged with a crime for disobeying. Your only defense then will be the illegality of the order...
So I am not surprised, people attempt to establish that any orders to "stop recording" are illegal — they often are wrong and motivated by nothing other than the policeman's instinctive desire for privacy, a desire we all have, but which most of us can not order others to respect.
But it has nothing to do with the First Amendment — and I wish, the lawyers stopped treating it as the "kitchen-sink" fount of new "rights".
Simple--freedom of the press is also covered by the First.
If that's your argument, that mere plans to publish a recording later protect any activity making it, you need to answer my follow-up questions for it to make sense:
Other activities
If any and all preparations of a future publication for the "press" are protected by the First Amendment, why should not other activities be protected too? For example:
Leaking State Secrets (to the press)
Entering Federal property "under false pretenses"?
Or even murder — as long as it is done on video for future or even immediate publication?
Prostitution, as in having sex for money, is illegal in most places. But being paid to do it on video is perfectly fine — because pornography is protected by the First Amendment.
What if nothing is ever published?
If none of the recordings are published withing "reasonable" time, do the people who made them (in defiance of police orders, for example) lose the constitutional protections? Can they then be charged for such defiance?
Other Amendments
If the First Amendment is interpreted so widely and liberally, why not the Second, for example? If, as many would claim, the Second covers only single-shot pistols and muskets, why does the First cover video-recordings? Why do people — ACLU and the sympathetic judges — defend and protect such wide interpretations of the First Amendment, but continuously ignore the daily trampling of the Second?
Though I agree with the court, that recording anything one can legally observe should itself be legal, I do not understand, what the First Amendment has to do with this right. What is the connection between such recording — which can (and often is) done silently — and Free Speech?
Also, are the First Amendment protections lost if the person recording never ends up publishing anything within "reasonable" time — can he then be charged under lesser local laws for things like "intimidation" or "refusing police orders"?
Meanwhile, the Second Amendment gets trampled every day — forget "assault" weapons, mere knives are illegal in many places and in New Jersey you can be arrested for possession of a slingshot "without explainable legal purpose"...
Study Claims Discarded Solar Panels Create More Toxic Waste Than Nuclear Plants
When the author of an article, or an editor of the publication agrees likes, where the study's implications lead, the title begins with "Study Suggests", or "Study Shows", or even "Study Proves".
On contrast, the disapproval causes the authors to start planting doubts in the readers' minds by using "Study Claims".
Sure, leaks are illegal. But, unless they are also considered wrong, people will keep doing them — for publicity or other aggrandizement, etc.
The constant harping on the US in general and the NSA in particular creates the perception, that hurting and embarrassing both somehow improves the world — a demonstrable falsehood.
Similarly, the worshiping of Snowden, who fully bought into the above-mentioned falsehood, and of Manning, who leaked the classified data not even to make the world a better place, but simply to impress acquaintances — make leaking glamorous even if still dangerous. And copy-cats follow.
This traitor-worship ought to stop. Even if you do (foolishly) believe, NSA is evil, you still can not betray the secrets entrusted to you — just as you would not murder, for example, to "raise awareness". Not only because it is illegal, but also because it is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, you misunderstood.
Yes, you are lucky to have a choice of competing service-providers. My argument is, government regulation reduces competition, making all people less lucky and some — completely unlucky.
The write-up this. If you wish to dispute it, you need to offer citations. When did the regulations about to be abolished come into effect?
How is this wrong?
So? Why should it be the concern of the government and the citizenry, what these private companies do?
Nothing other than my switching to XFinity or someone else available in my area, you mean?
Point is, they are not "little".
The single means of improving quality and lowering prices is competition — nothing else. It is exactly this threat of my switching to XFinity, that's the reason, I now pay FiOS $10 less per month for 2.5 times the bandwidth compared to 5 years ago.
Are you saying, YouTube became a thing after 2015? Seriously?.. Really?..
That happened before 1995 and was due to AT&T losing its monopoly — the rise of competition (MCI and Sprint) was what lowered prices and improved quality. And I would know, in the early 90ies we just immigrated and were calling friends and family back in Europe quite often.
Forced "neutrality" hurts them none. To cause them actual pain, promote competition. Government regulations help incumbents — be they cabbies under threat of Uber, hoteliers hurting from AirBnB, or the etablished ISPs facing off would-be competition.
We are repeatedly told, "net neutrality protects the little guy" — a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
OMG, how did we live in 2014?..
Translation: owners of the networking equipment and cables are prevented from doing what they want with their property. War is peace. Regulations are liberty.
This whole thread is about an illegal activity (such as disobeying a police officer's otherwise lawful order) suddenly becoming legal, when it is done to record something.
And here we finally come to my point — the police's order to disperse in general and/or to stop recording in particular was unlawful on its own, the cops should not have have issued it, the citizens didn't have to comply with it, and the First Amendment has nothing to do with it. It should not matter, whether I am recording anything or just watching the events — but, according to the court and you, it does.
That's the part that worries me greatly.
Whatever. The glaring hypocrisy, whereby the First Amendment is stretched in all directions and is continuously reinterpreted to become the fount of more and more rights, while the Second is ignored even on the matters and issues it obviously covered from its very beginning (such as the carrying of knives and brass knuckles), should be keeping you (and the ACLU) up at night. But does not...
"News"? Who said anything about "news"? We are talking about speech and press here. If it is my pleasure to talk about murder and/or write an article about it, according to this ruling, my actual murdering someone is protected by the First Amendment as long as I duly record it.
Why? What makes it "unlawful"?
This is not a "Conservative" issue — if you (and ACLU) weren't too busy fondling your hypocrisy, you would've defended all articles of the Bill of Rights equally.
vs.
So my signature — decidedly part of the presentation — almost made you disagree with the content of my post? Heal thyself...
Maybe, the perceived mistreatment of females in the Islam-dominated societies is more nuanced than we usually think...
I despite people/software, which prescribe, what font the remote recipient is supposed to use to view your messages. Stick to the content, not presentation.
Oh, and if your web-site insists on visitor loading and using particular fonts (except, maybe, for the icon-collections), you should kill yourself too. /rant
You missed mine. Yes, forcing people to — and even killing them, when they wouldn't — stop doing bad things may be useful and desirable. Indeed, we do lock up criminals depriving them of all sorts of freedoms.
But offering stuff for sale to willing buyers spending their own money voluntarily is not a crime and is not wrong — quite the opposite. Therefore, your attempt at a counter-example failed. Remember to logout.
To me this is related tightly to why Elon Musk has publicly broken up with Trump over "climate". If, as Trump thinks, climate is not really a big concern and the government will stop paying scientists to say, that it is, Tesla becomes just another car — and an expensive one at that...
Killing people is wrong. Making devices, that other people buy voluntarily is not.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Forcing is good.
This is great, I had no idea, these existed... Thanks.
The word "miserably" is overused.
It used to be, to get a proper (browser-recognized) certificate, the server's owner had to prove to someone already trusted by the browser, that they are a legitimate business. Getting a cert costed some money, because the Certificate Authority actually attempted to verify things.
Let's Encrypt neither promises nor makes any such attempts, but the browsers treat certificates signed by them the same way they treat all others.
Maybe, there should be some sort of premium tier for certificates? Something that would allow CAs to charge more in exchange for actually checking the server-owner's legitimacy?
And then, is the question of trusting Let's Encrypt to not provide a back door to someone with enough money and/or other means of persuasion... That question, of course, applies to all CAs, but a free one would have fewer resources to defend themselves against any such pressure (whether its source is legal or criminal)...
Because the law can not predict every situation, police officers have the authority to order people around as they see fit (this ability is what attracts an unhealthy number of people to become pigs in the first place). When so ordered, you must obey — or you can be charged with a crime for disobeying. Your only defense then will be the illegality of the order...
So I am not surprised, people attempt to establish that any orders to "stop recording" are illegal — they often are wrong and motivated by nothing other than the policeman's instinctive desire for privacy, a desire we all have, but which most of us can not order others to respect.
But it has nothing to do with the First Amendment — and I wish, the lawyers stopped treating it as the "kitchen-sink" fount of new "rights".
What?! Seems like a non-sequitur to me... One does not follow from the other at all...
See my earlier response to the Anonymous for more.
If that's your argument, that mere plans to publish a recording later protect any activity making it, you need to answer my follow-up questions for it to make sense:
Other activities If any and all preparations of a future publication for the "press" are protected by the First Amendment, why should not other activities be protected too? For example:Prostitution, as in having sex for money, is illegal in most places. But being paid to do it on video is perfectly fine — because pornography is protected by the First Amendment.
What if nothing is ever published? If none of the recordings are published withing "reasonable" time, do the people who made them (in defiance of police orders, for example) lose the constitutional protections? Can they then be charged for such defiance? Other Amendments If the First Amendment is interpreted so widely and liberally, why not the Second, for example? If, as many would claim, the Second covers only single-shot pistols and muskets, why does the First cover video-recordings? Why do people — ACLU and the sympathetic judges — defend and protect such wide interpretations of the First Amendment, but continuously ignore the daily trampling of the Second?Though I agree with the court, that recording anything one can legally observe should itself be legal, I do not understand, what the First Amendment has to do with this right. What is the connection between such recording — which can (and often is) done silently — and Free Speech?
If it is the plans to later publish the recordings, that place their preparation legal, then a lot of other activity may fall under the Amendment's protection — such as leaking state secrets or "entering federal property under false pretenses.
Also, are the First Amendment protections lost if the person recording never ends up publishing anything within "reasonable" time — can he then be charged under lesser local laws for things like "intimidation" or "refusing police orders"?
Meanwhile, the Second Amendment gets trampled every day — forget "assault" weapons, mere knives are illegal in many places and in New Jersey you can be arrested for possession of a slingshot "without explainable legal purpose"...
Why wasn't the 16-year low on the Slashdot's front page back in May? Why is the current move particularly news-worthy?
So is "Suggests" and "Says".
When the author of an article, or an editor of the publication agrees likes, where the study's implications lead, the title begins with "Study Suggests", or "Study Shows", or even "Study Proves".
On contrast, the disapproval causes the authors to start planting doubts in the readers' minds by using "Study Claims".
Just say "Study Says" next time, Ok?
Sure, leaks are illegal. But, unless they are also considered wrong, people will keep doing them — for publicity or other aggrandizement, etc.
The constant harping on the US in general and the NSA in particular creates the perception, that hurting and embarrassing both somehow improves the world — a demonstrable falsehood.
Similarly, the worshiping of Snowden, who fully bought into the above-mentioned falsehood, and of Manning, who leaked the classified data not even to make the world a better place, but simply to impress acquaintances — make leaking glamorous even if still dangerous. And copy-cats follow.
This traitor-worship ought to stop. Even if you do (foolishly) believe, NSA is evil, you still can not betray the secrets entrusted to you — just as you would not murder, for example, to "raise awareness". Not only because it is illegal, but also because it is wrong.
So, like, no swords and no clubs either, huh?