And that's a red herring. The contention of metadata collection has been whether or not it qualifies as unreasonable search and seizure, emphasis on the search part. Gathering such data within the limits of a warrant is legal. It's still a grey area whether requiring metadata gathering and retention on everyone is overreach. The "point" isn't relevant if it legally poisons evidence collected to where the rest becomes inadmissible in court.
To my understanding, the 4th amendment is still supposed to be a thing. Skipping the need for probable cause for each search, and not requiring a warrant to specify appropriately narrow limits for each search, by requiring businesses to conduct a continuous broad search seems to violate the letter and the spirit of the law. Privatization of corruption doesn't stop the practice from being corrupt.
No matter how complex a thing is, if you know it well enough, you can explain it to a 5 year old.
No, because some things take more than a year to explain.
Then you can begin by explaining to a 5 year old, and finish explaining to a 6 year old. Problem solved! Longer problems reduce to this existing solution with some trivial additions...
Context: GP equates having no choice but Windows 10 with being subjugated. If you remove enough of the words that disagree with your point, you can make anyone appear wrong.
What kind of arrogant, benighted, sheltered, pampered, pompous jackass equates something like running Windows 10 with being subjugated?
If someone like that shows up, we'll ask them. Until then...
So one would assume Muller would already know about this, yet, instead of charging Trump's lawyer himself, Muller passes this off to a local prosecutor?
The president could pardon his lawyer for a federal charge. A local prosecutor can try the lawyer on state charges, and would require the state's governor to issue a pardon, as that's a power reserved to the states. This is not by accident.
consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their own bodies
And they should expect everyone else to bear the costs to them and the people they damage. Right? No?
Sure! Right after the trial, the one that "procedural due process" guarantees them as is their right, concludes with a guilty verdict should you even consider charging them for it.
On October 1, 2016 ICANN ended its contract with the United States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and entered the private sector.
Citation: https://www.icann.org/news/ann...
Congress didn't renew the contract, the Republican majority congress... Thanks Obama!
I take this to mean that American trolls are slacking. This calls for massive tariffs on imported troll posts so that the balance shifts to locally sourced, free-range, gluten and asbestos free troll posts.
Step it up folks! Those likes, reblogs, and follows won't generate themselves!
Thank goodness there haven't been any security breaches of sufficient personal information that could be used to make fake youtube accounts for the foreseeable future. That sort of thing could very readily be automated to get around the penalties of starting a new channel.
Setting an example. It's far more efficient scaring people into hiding because they think they might be wanted for something. Whether they are even wanted isn't important.
It's much easier than that. Just label dissent as "fake news" often enough and the imagination of your viewers takes care of the rest. There are stories relating the speed capabilities of truth and falsehoods, but neither can compare with that of the unfounded rumor.
Signing a digital contract saying that a business may study my information but may not share additional copies with other people doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment issue at all. Nor does the bill outlining civil recourse for businesses failing to provide adequate security to uphold their side of such contract. What the bill actually seems to describe: Businesses that obtain information based on a digital contract have a responsibility to maintain adequate security to justify their claims of who they will and will not share that information to. Third parties obtaining information in bad faith are also the responsibility of the business. The Federal Trade Commission is defining some of the terms that apply to such digital contracts and making legal distinctions between some of them.
There's more to it than that, but it's Democrat sponsored and it's unlikely to be passed. So I don't recommend anyone actually read it.
More importantly, why hasn't Facebook respected when people opt out of its services? It would still be identity theft if they were to operate as a non-profit.
Mac OS L, HURD 3.0, or, BeOS Warp will probably exist around the time that monolithic kernels get too big for their britches. Get back to us when you've tried them, if you please.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's a red herring. The contention of metadata collection has been whether or not it qualifies as unreasonable search and seizure, emphasis on the search part. Gathering such data within the limits of a warrant is legal. It's still a grey area whether requiring metadata gathering and retention on everyone is overreach. The "point" isn't relevant if it legally poisons evidence collected to where the rest becomes inadmissible in court.
To my understanding, the 4th amendment is still supposed to be a thing. Skipping the need for probable cause for each search, and not requiring a warrant to specify appropriately narrow limits for each search, by requiring businesses to conduct a continuous broad search seems to violate the letter and the spirit of the law. Privatization of corruption doesn't stop the practice from being corrupt.
Just admit that with enough pieces of information it's all "personally identifying".
Off topic: Is there a word for "a problem that takes longer than one lifetime just to explain"?
No matter how complex a thing is, if you know it well enough, you can explain it to a 5 year old.
No, because some things take more than a year to explain.
Then you can begin by explaining to a 5 year old, and finish explaining to a 6 year old. Problem solved! Longer problems reduce to this existing solution with some trivial additions...
Heavy handed browser update policies are the reason I only use Edge
So, you're in favor of heavy handed browser update policies?
Negative eighty years. Oh SNAP!
No, I'm fairly sure most people agree Ginger goes well with Mary Ann.
Unless you meant you prefer Mary Ann with broccoli...
What kind of arrogant, benighted, sheltered, pampered, pompous jackass equates something like running Windows 10 with being subjugated?
If someone like that shows up, we'll ask them. Until then...
Get over yourself.
You mean like the Hoover Dam that is in the middle of the desert?
Yes, all of the Hoover Dams in Southern Australia.
So one would assume Muller would already know about this, yet, instead of charging Trump's lawyer himself, Muller passes this off to a local prosecutor?
The president could pardon his lawyer for a federal charge. A local prosecutor can try the lawyer on state charges, and would require the state's governor to issue a pardon, as that's a power reserved to the states. This is not by accident.
... Apple, Microsoft... Red Hat... and other Linux distros... Motion to have the sentence taken out back and shot.
No, followed by two spaces.
consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their own bodies
And they should expect everyone else to bear the costs to them and the people they damage. Right? No?
Sure! Right after the trial, the one that "procedural due process" guarantees them as is their right, concludes with a guilty verdict should you even consider charging them for it.
On October 1, 2016 ICANN ended its contract with the United States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and entered the private sector.
Citation: https://www.icann.org/news/ann...
Congress didn't renew the contract, the Republican majority congress... Thanks Obama!
The Esoteric Order of Dagon is looking for people with your interests.
"I lent a friend of mine $10,000 for plastic surgery and now I don't know what he looks like."
I take this to mean that American trolls are slacking. This calls for massive tariffs on imported troll posts so that the balance shifts to locally sourced, free-range, gluten and asbestos free troll posts. Step it up folks! Those likes, reblogs, and follows won't generate themselves!
"Is eating the rich a sustainable business model?" asks music group Aerosmith. The answer may be "no," according to follow-up information provided.
Thank goodness there haven't been any security breaches of sufficient personal information that could be used to make fake youtube accounts for the foreseeable future. That sort of thing could very readily be automated to get around the penalties of starting a new channel.
Setting an example. It's far more efficient scaring people into hiding because they think they might be wanted for something. Whether they are even wanted isn't important.
It's much easier than that. Just label dissent as "fake news" often enough and the imagination of your viewers takes care of the rest. There are stories relating the speed capabilities of truth and falsehoods, but neither can compare with that of the unfounded rumor.
Signing a digital contract saying that a business may study my information but may not share additional copies with other people doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment issue at all. Nor does the bill outlining civil recourse for businesses failing to provide adequate security to uphold their side of such contract.
What the bill actually seems to describe: Businesses that obtain information based on a digital contract have a responsibility to maintain adequate security to justify their claims of who they will and will not share that information to. Third parties obtaining information in bad faith are also the responsibility of the business. The Federal Trade Commission is defining some of the terms that apply to such digital contracts and making legal distinctions between some of them. There's more to it than that, but it's Democrat sponsored and it's unlikely to be passed. So I don't recommend anyone actually read it.
Thus it eliminates a false sense of security.
I suspect you meant emanates there, mostly because I've just reread one of Bruce Schneier's essays.
More importantly, why hasn't Facebook respected when people opt out of its services? It would still be identity theft if they were to operate as a non-profit.
Mac OS L, HURD 3.0, or, BeOS Warp will probably exist around the time that monolithic kernels get too big for their britches. Get back to us when you've tried them, if you please.