It's like people can't read isn't it? The Meuller report does not exonerate President Trump. It actually specifically says that in it.
“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,”
Someone will of course pop up and say that part isn't about Russian interference but the Meuller Report covered a lot of things.I would be very interested in seeing how close the President came to the line of the law and what side of morality he ends up on.
Why would the NZ Privacy Commissioner try and police the 'whole web'? Why would he try? He has no jurisdiction. As for people getting thicker skins, etc.....maybe people should accept that the web is a public place and what you say in a public place has some restrictions. Look again at your 'ugly range of human behaviour comment'. It is currently the 25th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide at which time New Zealand held the Presidency of the Security Council. Are you saying we should have ignored it as we accept the full ugly range of human behaviour exists?
Look, the whole problem exists because the NZ government refuses to do anything about it. That is it. The Privacy Commissioner is moaning because he has absolutely no other choice. It isn't middleware that is the problem, it is the New Zealand Governments failure to deal with a problem that has political consequences to them.
For starters, saying you have a level of privacy on Facebook from Facebook is an interesting idea to still hold. But, either way, it isn't the Privacy Commissioners problem. His problem is that he is legally powerless against Facebook so they just ignore him. This is actually the fault of the New Zealand Government. The solution is fairly simple, all the Government has to decide is whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. If they are a platform then they can get warrants for the people who posted the videos, etc...If not then Facebook is liable. The government doesn't have to consider the implementation. If Facebook is unable to operate within the legal restrictions of the country then they can stop operating in it.
He has every right to be pissed and the New Zealand government has egg all over it's face on this. Recently NZ has been updating it's Privacy Act and they yet again left it toothless with no power for the Privacy Commission to enforce compliance. But hey, that's what you get when the MP in charge of the Bill is also in charge of the GCSB. Well that, and a blanket exemption for the GCSB. This was before the Christchurch Shootings and look where we are now. It looks as though the Bill wasn't rewritten to so much to protect peoples privacy as it was to allow our economic compliance with the GDPR and gain more government exemptions. I doubt the Privacy Commissioner is as pissed at Facebook as he is at being left totally impotent by the New Zealand Government.
There is always a work around (and what a great defence in court for drunk drivers,"The car started so I thought I wasn't drunk"). You would have to imagine that the car will work if there is a passenger that is drunk. Otherwise, how exactly am I supposed to responsibly catch a taxi?
Toyota Hilux has a system where if you have something on the passenger seat and you go over a bump it occasionally registers that there is a passenger and starts beeping as the seat belt isn't done up. The easy fix for this is to leave the passenger seatbelt plugged in around the back of the seat. Perhaps a work around for this will be as simple engaging the passenger seatbelt, or opening the window, or breathing into a bag sober so you can use it after the pub, taping the sensor, getting someone else to breath on it, placing your dog on your lap, etc...
It is only a problem because if they are a platform then they hold no responsibility, but the users of the platform do. If they are a publisher then they do hold responsibility. They have been dancing a line between the two but then so has the government. If Facebook is a platform then the government has to charge thousands of people, not something they want too do. If they are a publisher then they have to come down on their users. Not something Facebook wants too do.
I am not sure whether your assertion that censorship is a natural tendency is actually correct. In my view retaining power is a natural tendency....censorship is just one of the methods being used. As too fighting against censorship in all its forms, errrrr, I dunno. I think what we are seeing here is a gain in individual power and the state trying to retain power. The idea that something is just to dangerous to be broadcast actually words when you boil it down to the people receiving the ideas are able to implement it as an individual.
For instance, I don't want a Wikihow article on how to make a bomb out of household chemicals that can destroy a city block being available. There are shitloads of nutters out there that I don't want that information freely available too. But that is technology. Actual applicable science. If you want to say abortion is murder then that is is a moral question (eg; What is murder?) What I am trying to say, perhaps badly as usual, is that censorship of technology is different from censorship of morality
Interesting thing that, "fire in a theatre" quote. According to Wikipedia it is a paraphrasing of the opinion of a Justice in the U.S. Supreme Court and was originally, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
The interesting part, to me at least, is that we essentially have the same problem. Someone is knowingly giving false information which could result in someone else taking action based on it. In this case the internet is the theatre, the false information was from people talking to Brenton Tarrant and the action was killing 50 people.
"With Mueller failing to deliver any damage to the President, his haters need new stuff to throw — in the hope, something will stick...
Actually, the only news referring to,"damage to the President" is that there were no more indictments recommended by Mueller. It is entirely possible that his legal advice is that a sitting President cannot be indicted so he is leaving it up to Congress (Or something. Not an American). It is also possible that there is evidence in the report but not clear enough to indict leaving the entire situation pretty much the same. You should probably wait until the report comes out in full, if it ever does.
That being said, I too would like to see a post on the technical aspects of the censorship. There are some interesting links here but although they list some of the sites censored there isn't a full list as far as I can find nor a breakdown of the methods that were used to do it. It might be an interesting insight into how far the intelligence services have managed to get their claws into our country. They have the legal platform now thanks to the #Labnats but what are their technological capabilities and/or do they even care.
I assume you are referring to the video of the shootings in New Zealand? The censorship on those is both pretty bloody justified and pretty bloody useless. It is justified in that the people being killed were people with families and children. People who loved them who shouldn't have to see their last moments of pain and terror. It is justified because the victims shouldn't have to see (if they survived) their own pain and terror being used to promote the agenda of the criminal. It is also justified because the people who watched and shared it didn't have the empathy to not watch and not share. There are some exceptions to this such as it being news, etc....but in general people could understand what had happened without having to see it and pass it on for kicks.
It is pretty bloody useless because the censorship failed miserably and probably made the video more popular with people being more reluctant to take it down due to the fact they were being censored. It also hides the problem. Censorship shouldn't be needed. We should be able to control our little masturbatory emotions and think before watching and sharing it. I think Plato said, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." And there are some broken people in the world so the government censors content because some people can't. I don't want people to watch me gasping out my last terrified breaths because of somebody else's mental illness. Some other people might, but that isn't something wrong with me, that's something wrong with them.
The people who knowingly watched the video, even worse shared it, or (even worse) enjoyed it need to sit down and think about who they are. If they don't feel horrified then possibly they should call a helpline to see if they need help (Warning: there are trackers on the Healthline page. Use tor).
A couple of months back I ran a group through the 5th edition starter set. All long time Magic players and had always wanted to play DnD but had never run into a Dungeon Master. Lots of fun and they were fantastic at playing characters instead of just for points.
And my compliments to whoever wrote it. He seems like the sort of person I dream of being in charge. Unfortunately, I am not an American so it is possible they aimed at the wrong demographic.
Thanks Anon, I just read half of that transcript and it is the same thing again. No proof given but does include stuff like,
"The state tells them what to do, and they do it. There is no hard evidence that's happened with Huawei, but the Obama administration has been unwilling to take the risk. "
That's about as handy as me saying they didn't do it because of this. Awww, look at his little face.....You obviously don't get what I mean by proof. If you want me to believe the U.S. Intelligence services then get them to roll out someone who does know what they are talking about with documented proof of how to control Huawei equipment.
Look, this whole Huawei is selling equipment that can be used to spy would be very simply solved if the U.S. would show some proof. If they can't do that then they are either lying, aren't technologically able too or haven't been able too because Huawei can come straight back with U.S. equipment and show how it is being used to spy. Since 9/11 the U.S. has been a political disaster on the world stage and they just aren't trusted anymore. Not even by their allies.
I have never got this sort of comment. To put it another way
I am not sure that is a selling point for VHS....I am not sure that is a selling point for DVD...etc..It's content, not format. Use Virtualbox to make your content available. The number of times you are actually going to use it is probably minuscule and if you really really need it. It's still there.
"interconnected nature of the JavaScript ecosystem, and the importance of providing a neutral home for projects which represent significant shared value,"
Which I am reading as,"The largest players always win unless we completely jump the shark and do another Internet Explorer fiasco allowing another player in the field." I mean, really, neutral homes are all well and good but when you declare them after owning the house it reminds me of equality by equality vs equality by equity.
"Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies has developed a biotech salmon that it plans to grow near no major body of water, in a production facility in the small town of Albany, Indiana. The company producing the breed of high-tech fish hopes to change the aquaculture industry."
They record every keystroke. Even what you type and delete is kept for eternity.
I dislike facebook as much as the next nerd (and no I don't use it), but this sounds a bit like tinfoil hattery.
Appears to be true. According to CBS, if you delete your Facebook account then your data is deleted but not the logs or any data connected with you generated by others. According to Daily Mail, Facebook once did a study on who self censors using what people went to post but then didn't.
If MS controlled Chromium works there is no reason to download Google controlled Chromium placing all the data gathered by Chomium in the hands of Bing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like people can't read isn't it? The Meuller report does not exonerate President Trump. It actually specifically says that in it.
“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,”
Someone will of course pop up and say that part isn't about Russian interference but the Meuller Report covered a lot of things.I would be very interested in seeing how close the President came to the line of the law and what side of morality he ends up on.
Why would the NZ Privacy Commissioner try and police the 'whole web'? Why would he try? He has no jurisdiction. As for people getting thicker skins, etc.....maybe people should accept that the web is a public place and what you say in a public place has some restrictions. Look again at your 'ugly range of human behaviour comment'. It is currently the 25th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide at which time New Zealand held the Presidency of the Security Council. Are you saying we should have ignored it as we accept the full ugly range of human behaviour exists?
Look, the whole problem exists because the NZ government refuses to do anything about it. That is it. The Privacy Commissioner is moaning because he has absolutely no other choice. It isn't middleware that is the problem, it is the New Zealand Governments failure to deal with a problem that has political consequences to them.
For starters, saying you have a level of privacy on Facebook from Facebook is an interesting idea to still hold. But, either way, it isn't the Privacy Commissioners problem. His problem is that he is legally powerless against Facebook so they just ignore him. This is actually the fault of the New Zealand Government. The solution is fairly simple, all the Government has to decide is whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. If they are a platform then they can get warrants for the people who posted the videos, etc...If not then Facebook is liable. The government doesn't have to consider the implementation. If Facebook is unable to operate within the legal restrictions of the country then they can stop operating in it.
He has every right to be pissed and the New Zealand government has egg all over it's face on this. Recently NZ has been updating it's Privacy Act and they yet again left it toothless with no power for the Privacy Commission to enforce compliance. But hey, that's what you get when the MP in charge of the Bill is also in charge of the GCSB. Well that, and a blanket exemption for the GCSB. This was before the Christchurch Shootings and look where we are now. It looks as though the Bill wasn't rewritten to so much to protect peoples privacy as it was to allow our economic compliance with the GDPR and gain more government exemptions. I doubt the Privacy Commissioner is as pissed at Facebook as he is at being left totally impotent by the New Zealand Government.
There is always a work around (and what a great defence in court for drunk drivers,"The car started so I thought I wasn't drunk"). You would have to imagine that the car will work if there is a passenger that is drunk. Otherwise, how exactly am I supposed to responsibly catch a taxi?
Toyota Hilux has a system where if you have something on the passenger seat and you go over a bump it occasionally registers that there is a passenger and starts beeping as the seat belt isn't done up. The easy fix for this is to leave the passenger seatbelt plugged in around the back of the seat. Perhaps a work around for this will be as simple engaging the passenger seatbelt, or opening the window, or breathing into a bag sober so you can use it after the pub, taping the sensor, getting someone else to breath on it, placing your dog on your lap, etc...
It is only a problem because if they are a platform then they hold no responsibility, but the users of the platform do. If they are a publisher then they do hold responsibility. They have been dancing a line between the two but then so has the government. If Facebook is a platform then the government has to charge thousands of people, not something they want too do. If they are a publisher then they have to come down on their users. Not something Facebook wants too do.
I am not sure whether your assertion that censorship is a natural tendency is actually correct. In my view retaining power is a natural tendency....censorship is just one of the methods being used. As too fighting against censorship in all its forms, errrrr, I dunno. I think what we are seeing here is a gain in individual power and the state trying to retain power. The idea that something is just to dangerous to be broadcast actually words when you boil it down to the people receiving the ideas are able to implement it as an individual.
For instance, I don't want a Wikihow article on how to make a bomb out of household chemicals that can destroy a city block being available. There are shitloads of nutters out there that I don't want that information freely available too. But that is technology. Actual applicable science. If you want to say abortion is murder then that is is a moral question (eg; What is murder?) What I am trying to say, perhaps badly as usual, is that censorship of technology is different from censorship of morality
Interesting thing that, "fire in a theatre" quote. According to Wikipedia it is a paraphrasing of the opinion of a Justice in the U.S. Supreme Court and was originally, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
The interesting part, to me at least, is that we essentially have the same problem. Someone is knowingly giving false information which could result in someone else taking action based on it. In this case the internet is the theatre, the false information was from people talking to Brenton Tarrant and the action was killing 50 people.
Actually, the only news referring to,"damage to the President" is that there were no more indictments recommended by Mueller. It is entirely possible that his legal advice is that a sitting President cannot be indicted so he is leaving it up to Congress (Or something. Not an American). It is also possible that there is evidence in the report but not clear enough to indict leaving the entire situation pretty much the same. You should probably wait until the report comes out in full, if it ever does.
Yes. It was a perfect world comment.
That being said, I too would like to see a post on the technical aspects of the censorship. There are some interesting links here but although they list some of the sites censored there isn't a full list as far as I can find nor a breakdown of the methods that were used to do it. It might be an interesting insight into how far the intelligence services have managed to get their claws into our country. They have the legal platform now thanks to the #Labnats but what are their technological capabilities and/or do they even care.
I assume you are referring to the video of the shootings in New Zealand? The censorship on those is both pretty bloody justified and pretty bloody useless. It is justified in that the people being killed were people with families and children. People who loved them who shouldn't have to see their last moments of pain and terror. It is justified because the victims shouldn't have to see (if they survived) their own pain and terror being used to promote the agenda of the criminal. It is also justified because the people who watched and shared it didn't have the empathy to not watch and not share. There are some exceptions to this such as it being news, etc....but in general people could understand what had happened without having to see it and pass it on for kicks.
It is pretty bloody useless because the censorship failed miserably and probably made the video more popular with people being more reluctant to take it down due to the fact they were being censored. It also hides the problem. Censorship shouldn't be needed. We should be able to control our little masturbatory emotions and think before watching and sharing it. I think Plato said, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." And there are some broken people in the world so the government censors content because some people can't. I don't want people to watch me gasping out my last terrified breaths because of somebody else's mental illness. Some other people might, but that isn't something wrong with me, that's something wrong with them.
The people who knowingly watched the video, even worse shared it, or (even worse) enjoyed it need to sit down and think about who they are. If they don't feel horrified then possibly they should call a helpline to see if they need help (Warning: there are trackers on the Healthline page. Use tor).
A couple of months back I ran a group through the 5th edition starter set. All long time Magic players and had always wanted to play DnD but had never run into a Dungeon Master. Lots of fun and they were fantastic at playing characters instead of just for points.
And my compliments to whoever wrote it. He seems like the sort of person I dream of being in charge. Unfortunately, I am not an American so it is possible they aimed at the wrong demographic.
Thanks Anon, I just read half of that transcript and it is the same thing again. No proof given but does include stuff like,
"The state tells them what to do, and they do it. There is no hard evidence that's happened with Huawei, but the Obama administration has been unwilling to take the risk. "
That's about as handy as me saying they didn't do it because of this. Awww, look at his little face.....You obviously don't get what I mean by proof. If you want me to believe the U.S. Intelligence services then get them to roll out someone who does know what they are talking about with documented proof of how to control Huawei equipment.
Look, this whole Huawei is selling equipment that can be used to spy would be very simply solved if the U.S. would show some proof. If they can't do that then they are either lying, aren't technologically able too or haven't been able too because Huawei can come straight back with U.S. equipment and show how it is being used to spy. Since 9/11 the U.S. has been a political disaster on the world stage and they just aren't trusted anymore. Not even by their allies.
Try this
I have never got this sort of comment. To put it another way
I am not sure that is a selling point for VHS....I am not sure that is a selling point for DVD...etc..It's content, not format. Use Virtualbox to make your content available. The number of times you are actually going to use it is probably minuscule and if you really really need it. It's still there.
Which I am reading as,"The largest players always win unless we completely jump the shark and do another Internet Explorer fiasco allowing another player in the field." I mean, really, neutral homes are all well and good but when you declare them after owning the house it reminds me of equality by equality vs equality by equity.
Cheers for that.
Well....that left out her greatest nemisis being a female. Perspective please.
Who hired the bots?
"Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies has developed a biotech salmon that it plans to grow near no major body of water, in a production facility in the small town of Albany, Indiana. The company producing the breed of high-tech fish hopes to change the aquaculture industry."
Not seafood.
I was looking at buying a linux laptop the other week. I believe all of the will run Office under wine. https://masonbee.nz/category/t...
They record every keystroke. Even what you type and delete is kept for eternity.
I dislike facebook as much as the next nerd (and no I don't use it), but this sounds a bit like tinfoil hattery.
Appears to be true. According to CBS, if you delete your Facebook account then your data is deleted but not the logs or any data connected with you generated by others. According to Daily Mail, Facebook once did a study on who self censors using what people went to post but then didn't.
If MS controlled Chromium works there is no reason to download Google controlled Chromium placing all the data gathered by Chomium in the hands of Bing.