In the long list of things that can and should make a country irrelevant, the cost of a phone plan is pretty much... not there.
Cost of communications, not to mention the related access to the Internet, enables productivity, informal education, access to employment, etc. so no, it is on that list.
Aside from this, the US is not impressing anyone with things that you might agree are important like infant mortality (34th globally), medical care per dollar spent (worst in the world), student debt (worst in the world), percentage of the population in prison (second highest in the world), percentage of the population with a university level degree (12th), etc., etc.
You joke, but what really happens is the US carriers have decided "we'll call it whatever we like for marketing purposes". Which means someone comes along, defines a standard, and then US carriers co-opt the name and say "yup, we have that", when in reality they don't have that.
This has nothing to do with metric, and everything to do with US corporations saying "Yeah, we totally have 4G", except it's not really 4G, it's some marketing term which has nothing to do with 4G.
So, you know, stop letting your companies take the name of a specific bit of technology and say they're using it when they aren't. Then you won't have the problem of the US glaringly not running the technology they claim.
But, apparently, part of corporate free speech is mis-representing your service to your customers.
4G just means 4th Generation and is not a specific technology. So whatever technology a company puts in place to replace 3G, that is 4G. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The problem with this is...who with any power is gonna sign it without the full on global revolution that would be need to get those that hold power to put something in place to limit their own power.
There are no longer many countries that care more about personal freedom than they care about their own powerbase.
everyone is innocent until they're convicted in a court of law
Except anyone who looks like a terrorist who, under The Patriot Act (tm), is grabbed off the street, stuffed in a hole somewhere and denied access to legal counsel and a swift trial.
The Fifth Amendment means that when they torture you into confessing, it's not admissible in court? As an American, I find the concept of throwing out evidence somewhat questionable is well, as in, if someone is guilty, they are guilty, no matter how the evidence was obtained. There should be more direct consequences for unlawfully obtaining evidence, because supressing evidence obtained by violating rights only protects the guilty, as you said. What we really need is a way of punishing law enforcement for violating the rights of INNOCENT people, as it is, they don't even say "I'm sorry". The best we can hope for is to actually get reimbursed for the property they destroy.
So the drugs and child porn found in your apartment by Bob the Bad Cop (bought and paid for by someone you pissed off last week) who broke down your door and found them there, alone with no witness to contest his story...should be allowed as evidence in court against you?
One of the example solutions in the document is to force the device provider to update the device with a malicious update the decrypts the device. Talk about a way to encourage people to allow the device update to run! They even acknowledge this. It's quite humorous, people should read it. The paper discusses how even if a solution is implemented device owners could simply layer their own encryption on and make all data inaccessible. So if that's the case, exactly what is the point in the paper or the working group? They acknowledge right at the start that whatever you propose could easily be defeated by the consumer simply encrypting things themselves. So if the entire thing is technologically unfeasible why on earth would you even study it?
The one thing I haven't seen covered in the paper at all is that IF the US were to implement these requirements that all business involved in encryption would simply move off shore and destroy a thriving US business ecosystem. The paper's assumption is that any US developed protocol would then be exported world wide. This is profoundly illogical on many fronts. There would be numerous countries that would simply not participate in some US encryption compromising ring.
Whatever you use to add a layer of encryption has to accept some form of password via device input (screen, keyboard, voice, camera, all of which will already be compromised by design at a lower level than we'll have access to.
The US needs to wake up to the fact that it doesn't set policy for the world, and that other jurisdictions have their own laws and regulations that US companies have to abide by if they want to do business there.
That goes both ways though, with those other countries businesses wanting to do business in the US which is a large enough market that EU (and other) businesses will put pressure on EU (and other) governments over time to allow the US to do what it wants.
"Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person." ( Article 11, paragraph 3 ).
On "other celestial bodies" however, e.g. asteroids, the Treaty is silent regarding property and appropriation.
The US'll just 'unsign' it like it did the Kyoto treaty.
It looks like the US got bored forcing their laws on other countries here on Earth so they've moved on to the moon and asteroids. First it was refusing to honour EU data protection laws agreed to by international treaty, now it's ignoring the Outer Space Treaty. This is establishing sovereignty on the moon and asteroids by granting businesses permission to operate there and take resources from them. If it wasn't establishing sovereignty, those laws would have no effect, nor would they be necessary. As a European citizen, I really want the US to fuck off.
Does planting the flag first on a territory not claim that territory?
All that a large company has to do is set up layers of shell companies in jurisdictions that don't cooperate with each other and they can do what they want.
Put the bottom most layer in some poor third world country that has zero chance of putting their own claim on space resources and it's a done deal.
With regard to citizenship for companies (etc)...companies are not and should not be 'people'.
The current laws that allow them to behave like people allow them to do what they want, having no fear of prison, just paying enormous fines that are part of the business and risk/return models to basically get away with murder (bad medicine, money laundering for drug cartels and terrorist groups, setting market rates, etc, etc, etc.).
Look at these and tell me what would have happened had it been people found guilty and not companies? http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
>"Any biometric signature that has been digitized can then be used as an attack on a secure system, granted not by the same input system."
Yes, but unlike fingerprints, you can't use the vein data to create a fake palm or arm to trick physical scanners. At least, not without a tremendous amount of effort and complexity...
Agreed, that's why I said not the same input system. If you have digital access to the system at any point where you can 'input' the 'scan' data then the actual physical scan becomes unnecessary.
We agree that if it's our own content we should be able to get it removed. Do we agree that if it's not our own content then this law should not apply and other existing laws (i.e. libel) should apply ?
Google caches stuff so if I paste something to Facebook about myself and then remove it from facebook it might still be findable on Google - so I think it applies under the 'right to forget law' to have Google 'forget' (remove from cache in my opinion, as well as from search results).
I think there might also be some rights about owning pictures of oneself that might come into play here.
>"OPM Says 5.6 million Fingerprints Stolen In Cyberattack"
Which is why fingerprints and DNA should *NEVER* be given, taken, or stored as biometrics.
Deep vein scan. THAT is the only reasonable biometric. It is of almost no value if stolen, can't be misused easily, isn't left all over the place like fingerprints and DNA, is quite unique, contains no sensitive information about the person, is very difficult to fake, can't be easily collected or read without the user's knowledge, is fast and easy to collect and also to use.
Any biometric signature that has been digitized can then be used as an attack on a secure system, granted not by the same input system.
There's a big difference between the government saying 'remove data X' and a person saying 'remove that post about me' and having the government enforce that person's right to privacy.
At the end, it's still the government saying 'remove data X.' It doesn't matter whether the original desire comes from a private person. Either way, it's still the government forcing the issue.
I disagree - there is a very large difference between the government enforcing my wish about content pertaining to me and the government doing something on its own without my request driving it.
Anyway at the end of the day the government is forcing all legal compliance and I have no problem with them enforcing my request to have content about me removed from the Internet.
:) the issue is that none of it is libelous. And nobody is going after the article directly because they are very aware that there are numerous "freedom of the press" laws that would prevent them from getting anywhere.
so they're saying, we'll let you print it, but we'll let people bury it so far down that nobody will ever find it.
what's to prevent some unscrupulous competitor finding every article that lists a person's name in passing by a newspaper, and paying these random bystanders to have them request that google delist them?
Talk about chilling... "don't use names" because most likely nobody will be able to find your article in 3 years time.
Okay but if the original content is of my own doing (ie facebook uploads, linked in profile, google+, whatever - then I should be able to have it retracted if I want it to be. To me this is what is meant by the right to be forgotten.
Are you aware of any instances where what you describe is happening? Because for me it only applies to what I'm describing...
maybe I've seen too many movies, but for something that is locked down that tight, it sounds like 'bad guys' would really want to get in there.
I need my fingers. I would have to have one cut off by a bad guy, so he could use my prints.
might be very farfetched, but I'm not so sure I'd want to sign up for a security job that needed prints. in fact, it seems quite stupid for a security company to put its people at risk like this!
My point is more that once the digital information representing your fingerprint is compromised that it is compromised forever and for every biometric authentication that uses a fingerprint.
Perhaps this has to be that I have the right to have things about me that I myself posted the original content for removed, but I wouldn't have the right to have such an article as you postulate removed (without other legal action i.e. libel or whatever).
If France gets the offensive (right to be forgotten) content removed from the source then all of this political grandstanding is moot. Get the source to remove the content, and then forbid the EU from using cached indexes in Google. Why demand more from Google to do their record destruction? This is more about control than it is about privacy.
Google caches everything, so no it's not moot. Even if the EU didn't use cached indexes Google would still have (and sell) the information.
How can you have privacy without control over the content involved?
Slashdot Mirror
And people wonder why rich are getting richer and the middle class is shrinking.
But hey - free market is good and socialism is bad, right?
Sure - until you have to live on that socialist welfare because your capitalist company owners dumped your ass cause you cost too much.
In the long list of things that can and should make a country irrelevant, the cost of a phone plan is pretty much... not there.
Cost of communications, not to mention the related access to the Internet, enables productivity, informal education, access to employment, etc. so no, it is on that list.
Aside from this, the US is not impressing anyone with things that you might agree are important like infant mortality (34th globally), medical care per dollar spent (worst in the world), student debt (worst in the world), percentage of the population in prison (second highest in the world), percentage of the population with a university level degree (12th), etc., etc.
But FUCK YEAH!!!
You joke, but what really happens is the US carriers have decided "we'll call it whatever we like for marketing purposes". Which means someone comes along, defines a standard, and then US carriers co-opt the name and say "yup, we have that", when in reality they don't have that.
This has nothing to do with metric, and everything to do with US corporations saying "Yeah, we totally have 4G", except it's not really 4G, it's some marketing term which has nothing to do with 4G.
So, you know, stop letting your companies take the name of a specific bit of technology and say they're using it when they aren't. Then you won't have the problem of the US glaringly not running the technology they claim.
But, apparently, part of corporate free speech is mis-representing your service to your customers.
4G just means 4th Generation and is not a specific technology. So whatever technology a company puts in place to replace 3G, that is 4G.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm curious if off the shelf protection programs detect the FBI malware, or they've been compromised at the money layer.
The problem with this is...who with any power is gonna sign it without the full on global revolution that would be need to get those that hold power to put something in place to limit their own power.
There are no longer many countries that care more about personal freedom than they care about their own powerbase.
Trying to figure out what NSfW acts had to be taking place in those taxis that would cause them to lose their license
you do realize the Kyoto treaty was never ratified by the US Senate (in fact, the Clinton administration never submitted it), right?
I know it wasn't ratified - but it was signed by the US administration.
everyone is innocent until they're convicted in a court of law
Except anyone who looks like a terrorist who, under The Patriot Act (tm), is grabbed off the street, stuffed in a hole somewhere and denied access to legal counsel and a swift trial.
The Fifth Amendment means that when they torture you into confessing, it's not admissible in court? As an American, I find the concept of throwing out evidence somewhat questionable is well, as in, if someone is guilty, they are guilty, no matter how the evidence was obtained. There should be more direct consequences for unlawfully obtaining evidence, because supressing evidence obtained by violating rights only protects the guilty, as you said. What we really need is a way of punishing law enforcement for violating the rights of INNOCENT people, as it is, they don't even say "I'm sorry". The best we can hope for is to actually get reimbursed for the property they destroy.
So the drugs and child porn found in your apartment by Bob the Bad Cop (bought and paid for by someone you pissed off last week) who broke down your door and found them there, alone with no witness to contest his story...should be allowed as evidence in court against you?
One of the example solutions in the document is to force the device provider to update the device with a malicious update the decrypts the device. Talk about a way to encourage people to allow the device update to run! They even acknowledge this. It's quite humorous, people should read it. The paper discusses how even if a solution is implemented device owners could simply layer their own encryption on and make all data inaccessible. So if that's the case, exactly what is the point in the paper or the working group? They acknowledge right at the start that whatever you propose could easily be defeated by the consumer simply encrypting things themselves. So if the entire thing is technologically unfeasible why on earth would you even study it?
The one thing I haven't seen covered in the paper at all is that IF the US were to implement these requirements that all business involved in encryption would simply move off shore and destroy a thriving US business ecosystem. The paper's assumption is that any US developed protocol would then be exported world wide. This is profoundly illogical on many fronts. There would be numerous countries that would simply not participate in some US encryption compromising ring.
Whatever you use to add a layer of encryption has to accept some form of password via device input (screen, keyboard, voice, camera, all of which will already be compromised by design at a lower level than we'll have access to.
Interesting that it's available via the wifi as well, evidently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The US needs to wake up to the fact that it doesn't set policy for the world, and that other jurisdictions have their own laws and regulations that US companies have to abide by if they want to do business there.
That goes both ways though, with those other countries businesses wanting to do business in the US which is a large enough market that EU (and other) businesses will put pressure on EU (and other) governments over time to allow the US to do what it wants.
"Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person."
( Article 11, paragraph 3 ).
On "other celestial bodies" however, e.g. asteroids, the Treaty is silent regarding property and appropriation.
The US'll just 'unsign' it like it did the Kyoto treaty.
It looks like the US got bored forcing their laws on other countries here on Earth so they've moved on to the moon and asteroids. First it was refusing to honour EU data protection laws agreed to by international treaty, now it's ignoring the Outer Space Treaty. This is establishing sovereignty on the moon and asteroids by granting businesses permission to operate there and take resources from them. If it wasn't establishing sovereignty, those laws would have no effect, nor would they be necessary. As a European citizen, I really want the US to fuck off.
Does planting the flag first on a territory not claim that territory?
All that a large company has to do is set up layers of shell companies in jurisdictions that don't cooperate with each other and they can do what they want.
Put the bottom most layer in some poor third world country that has zero chance of putting their own claim on space resources and it's a done deal.
With regard to citizenship for companies (etc)...companies are not and should not be 'people'.
The current laws that allow them to behave like people allow them to do what they want, having no fear of prison, just paying enormous fines that are part of the business and risk/return models to basically get away with murder (bad medicine, money laundering for drug cartels and terrorist groups, setting market rates, etc, etc, etc.).
Look at these and tell me what would have happened had it been people found guilty and not companies?
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
>"Any biometric signature that has been digitized can then be used as an attack on a secure system, granted not by the same input system."
Yes, but unlike fingerprints, you can't use the vein data to create a fake palm or arm to trick physical scanners. At least, not without a tremendous amount of effort and complexity...
Agreed, that's why I said not the same input system. If you have digital access to the system at any point where you can 'input' the 'scan' data then the actual physical scan becomes unnecessary.
Agreed -
So let's see...
We agree that if it's our own content we should be able to get it removed.
Do we agree that if it's not our own content then this law should not apply and other existing laws (i.e. libel) should apply ?
Google caches stuff so if I paste something to Facebook about myself and then remove it from facebook it might still be findable on Google - so I think it applies under the 'right to forget law' to have Google 'forget' (remove from cache in my opinion, as well as from search results).
I think there might also be some rights about owning pictures of oneself that might come into play here.
>"OPM Says 5.6 million Fingerprints Stolen In Cyberattack"
Which is why fingerprints and DNA should *NEVER* be given, taken, or stored as biometrics.
Deep vein scan. THAT is the only reasonable biometric. It is of almost no value if stolen, can't be misused easily, isn't left all over the place like fingerprints and DNA, is quite unique, contains no sensitive information about the person, is very difficult to fake, can't be easily collected or read without the user's knowledge, is fast and easy to collect and also to use.
Any biometric signature that has been digitized can then be used as an attack on a secure system, granted not by the same input system.
As you can imagine, this is a pretty awkward situation for both the cinemagoer and the cinema staff to be in!
It also explains why the popcorn is salty and sticky at the same time
There's a big difference between the government saying 'remove data X' and a person saying 'remove that post about me' and having the government enforce that person's right to privacy.
At the end, it's still the government saying 'remove data X.' It doesn't matter whether the original desire comes from a private person. Either way, it's still the government forcing the issue.
I disagree - there is a very large difference between the government enforcing my wish about content pertaining to me and the government doing something on its own without my request driving it.
Anyway at the end of the day the government is forcing all legal compliance and I have no problem with them enforcing my request to have content about me removed from the Internet.
:) the issue is that none of it is libelous. And nobody is going after the article directly because they are very aware that there are numerous "freedom of the press" laws that would prevent them from getting anywhere.
so they're saying, we'll let you print it, but we'll let people bury it so far down that nobody will ever find it.
what's to prevent some unscrupulous competitor finding every article that lists a person's name in passing by a newspaper, and paying these random bystanders to have them request that google delist them?
Talk about chilling... "don't use names" because most likely nobody will be able to find your article in 3 years time.
Okay but if the original content is of my own doing (ie facebook uploads, linked in profile, google+, whatever - then I should be able to have it retracted if I want it to be. To me this is what is meant by the right to be forgotten.
Are you aware of any instances where what you describe is happening? Because for me it only applies to what I'm describing...
maybe I've seen too many movies, but for something that is locked down that tight, it sounds like 'bad guys' would really want to get in there.
I need my fingers. I would have to have one cut off by a bad guy, so he could use my prints.
might be very farfetched, but I'm not so sure I'd want to sign up for a security job that needed prints. in fact, it seems quite stupid for a security company to put its people at risk like this!
My point is more that once the digital information representing your fingerprint is compromised that it is compromised forever and for every biometric authentication that uses a fingerprint.
Just change the passwords associated with the accounts...
Oh wait...can't change those fingerprints so easily.
THIS is why I hate giving my fingerprints to companies (ie datacenters) who require them for access.
You have a valid point.
Perhaps this has to be that I have the right to have things about me that I myself posted the original content for removed, but I wouldn't have the right to have such an article as you postulate removed (without other legal action i.e. libel or whatever).
Anyway, your point is taken -
If France gets the offensive (right to be forgotten) content removed from the source then all of this political grandstanding is moot. Get the source to remove the content, and then forbid the EU from using cached indexes in Google. Why demand more from Google to do their record destruction? This is more about control than it is about privacy.
Google caches everything, so no it's not moot. Even if the EU didn't use cached indexes Google would still have (and sell) the information.
How can you have privacy without control over the content involved?