A politician gets out in front of the NSA's blackmail threats in order to try to bring them to heel.
399 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
A politician gets out in front of the NSA's blackmail threats in order to try to bring them to heel.
The only way to prove they were illegally spying on you is to illegally hack them, thus giving perfect justification for them spying on you as you are the type of person that will hack into secret government servers.
Is The Donald the mayor?
"apparently they still get read"
They're not read if they're just stored or automatically opened and scanned by a machine, it's only read if a person eyeballs it.
That's all well and good, but until people high up the food chain start going to jail for these blatant constitutional abuses then this is nothing more than a temporary reprieve on the road to the panopticon.
"Grassley on the other hand referred to recent atrocities including the Paris, Brussels and San Bernardino shootings and insisted that "the Intelligence Community have the tools to keep us safe.""
So the Intelligence Community's recent abject failures to keep "us" safe is given as evidence of why they have to be allowed to keep breaking the law? That is some level 10 spinning right there.
Contrary to your limited view of me through the medium of the internet I am neither angry nor especially persecuted. I have a much more nuanced view of copyright than either yourself or the pirate party and am open to persuasion from either side. However, what I see is governments pandering to corporations so that individual copyright is apparently optional but individuals breaking corporate copyright are to be hammered by the law.
Your view that only industrial infringers will be hit is naive in the extreme. I seem to recall people with different coloured ties telling us RIPA would only be used for terrorism and then another tie mob asking for people's internet access to be revoked should they download a few films or songs. I also recall the same corporations trying to ban cassette recorders and VHS recorders as they would completely ruin the music and film and TV industry and to make saving a TV show for your own personal viewing illegal. They have managed to ruin companies like Aereo and block various technology startups through legislation and regulation to preserve an oligopoly.
But sure, paint me as a freetard, ignore the points and attack the strawman. Ignore history and trust to the benevolence of courts, politicians, police and corporations.
But just for fun, could you please inform us what "industrial scale" means? I can find no definition and since the music biz seemed to go after uploaders with claims for damages in the hundreds of thousands, and if that ain't "industrial scale" what is, doesn't that actually put regular people who share copyrighted material in the crosshairs of a 10 year sentence? If not, why not?
Ain't that the truth. To the line or be rejected. All because I suggested that perhaps based on http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/22/ten_years_for_filesharing/ a persecution complex is not entirely unjustified.
Now, will I be rejected for having a link to a Reg article in a Reg comment?
"We also want to reassure everyone customer and employee data was not compromised."
Yes it was...
"to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize:"
Your google search history for symptoms matches your anonymous medical history in the same timeframe, but they'd never be able to put those two things together, would they?
Let alone the illegal, sorry, accidental, data slurp their street view cars were doing.
If that were true the stock would be a heck of a lot lower than $95.
Are they questioning Bananaman?
If I download it won't GCHQ have to analyse it to work out what it is? Won't that save lots of scientists a load of work and finally put the Orwellian Panopticon to some good use for once?
Of course, 300TB will be the proverbial needle in the pron haystack that is my download history. And not just any haystack, a Barn-sized haystack.
In the UK the government not having 'access to [un]encrypt' is enough to convict.
While some of my former teachers would probably agree with forgetting being a crime, it seems a bit much to me.
Why don't the FBI say to Ford that they need a way to remotely lock any vehicle and have it drive itself to the nearest police station? By their logic they can force any company to do anything, right?
Industry has convinced government that a potential economic detriment to them should be dealt with not by their lawyers and civil courts, but by criminal courts and state lawyers. That means you and I are paying through tax to pay for the state to investigate, prosecute and punish infringers (i.e. our fellow citizens) whereas in most other situations the supposedly wronged party has to pony up for their own lawyers, initially at least, court costs are paid by the loser and an economic redress is made if the party is found to have done wrong.
Of course, as with everything, there are two sides here - industry has also convinced government that our information should be free for their use, from Facebook's claims of ownership of everything you upload to Google scanning all books ever written with no recompense or permission.
I may be naive, but these seems to be two completely opposite views on copyright that the state seems happy to play along with and they both screw the little guy. If we had only one at least we'd know where we stood, but currently industry copyright is protected by the state and personal copyright isn't worth a damn.
If I rob her of a DVD using minimal violence I'll get 1-3 years. But if I upload that DVD I'll get up to 10 years.
Is she sure it's the upload part she wants to deter here?
You don't get it, do you? We're all of interest. The purpose of these things is not to see patterns and stop terrorism* it is to spot the patterns of people who do terrorism so they can use those patterns to target people who are not keen on the govt of the day or the security apparatus in place.
Everyone matches some part of the some terrorists' (or drug smugglers' or paedos' or whatever the bogeyman of the day is) profiles, so it's trivial to have people escorted away for several months and their equipment forensically analysed for any infringement then prosecuted for that.
As long as the people know the government/security services are spying on us then, as per the panopticon, we'll be too afraid of being caught to step out of line or criticise the status quo. We're not there yet, but it's only a matter of time before a comment like this gets me an interview with my local friendly plod for not being pro-establishment enough and possibly a bit subversive and maybe some re-education is in order.
* maybe it will do that sometimes, but that's just a nice PR story to keep people onside.
Secret courts, private rulings, no appeals, state interest overriding the public's rights, appointed judges...
Who could ever imagine anything would go wrong?
I carry around 20 KWh* of unused, unwanted energy. Why can't a wearable tap into that and stay charged forever as well as improving my health and looks? We could even incorporate a USB port and I could charge all my devices from my abundant energy reserves**.
* 2 kg fat * 35KJ/gram / 3600 (secs->hours)
** Should be careful how I phrase that or the US might invade me.
Assuming Quantum computers are thousands of times faster than the best supercomputer for problem X, how do you go about checking the machine got the right answer if it takes a several hours to run the program? It would take years on a regular supercomputer. Do we check the simple ones then take its word on anything that takes over a few minutes? Seems like a great way to sell a modern Mechanical Turk.
This is obvious bullshit.
If the system works as a quantum computer, and isn't just a regular machine heavily overclocked and set up to excel in quantum-type problems, then I'm sure it is orders of magnitudes better. But we'd have real numbers and not 100 million+ or the sniff test-failing seconds to hours magic number of 3,600.
Several points to be made here, let's start with your 'discovery' - it is in fact more than a decade old view that the left/right line of politics is more accurately a horseshoe where the further you traverse towards either end of the spectrum the more alike they become:
(But I'm sure it's actually much older than that. I recall making a similar observation 20 years ago thinking about the similarities between fascism and communism)
As for your multi-dimensional political view, there is already a much better political compass that separates out the economic freedom from personal/social freedom:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
Now just because Uber don't want regulation in one particular market segment does not mean they don't want regulation in any segment, e.g. if cars are allowed on the road, untaxed and uninsured, with no traffic rules and regulations then people are less likely to use Uber (drivers and passengers) because the roads would be incredibly unsafe - this is NOT what Uber would want. They likely also quite like the regulation of the financial markets that enables them to get such large sums of money to
cripple the opposition continue growing their business.
As for "Somalia", what makes you think there is no regulation there? It is about as over-regulated as it gets. Men with guns come and ensure you are doing things they like and take your money, then other men with guns come to ensure you're doing something different and take your money. Just because there is no coordination between the groups with guns does not make you 'free' from regulation.
And all these western clowns who keep going on about how great government regulation is and how restaurants would poison you every chance they had without some bureaucrat with a clipboard form the local council coming down and taking bribes every other month, where the hell do you eat and stay when you're on holiday? The bloke with the clipboard doesn't go to Mexico or the Canaries ahead of you to check that restaurant or hotel in advance of your arrival, so it seems the world does actually manage to function without poisoning everyone without the bloke from your local council checking standards.
Speaking of which, when you're abroad how do you decide which restaurants/hotels are clean? You use tripadvisor or some non-government site that collates customer reviews. But that would never work here, right? We definitely need the bloke with the clipboard who earns bugger all and definitely can't be bribed, amirite?
Dear AC, let me state this once again, you clearly missed the title first time: over-governance.
Everyone wants somebody to be looking out for their interests (even paleo-libertarians believe a market in advice/recommendations would spring up to keep companies mostly honest) but there is a limit. Regulating kids' lemonade stands seems way, way over that limit.
Hey there Peanuts kids, got a lemonade stand? That's $91 for every year you've been running it. Thanks.
Hey Peanuts kids, nice legal business you got there. Now here's the health and safety certificates you need to obtain to sell food or drink to the public.
We're from the government and we're here to help.
Bloody close enough to be almost right, and as lies to children go, pretty damn good.
He'll be burned as a witch on his next visit to the US.
Living inside a giant fish, talking snakes, walking on water, rising from the dead, travelling on a magic flying horse.
Yep, he's got a point. No real religion would be based on a work of fiction.
"if I could prove my innocence"
Not my job. Cops have to prove non-innoncence otherwise they can fuck right off.
...he said with a really high pitched voice.
They tried the terrorist angle.
Now they're going for drug dealer/gang banger.
I guarantee the next one is an alleged paedophile's phone.
That's the big 3 they always try to scare you with to give up your freedoms meekly and unquestioningly.
$35k car, 5 year lifecycle, $7k pa. 7 year lifecyle $5k pa. You're not gonna fuck about with repairs and replacements on the hideously expensive battery pack - treat it as a hire purchase and accept the limitations.
The 14th Amendment applies as the government is using the All Writs Act (1789) to force, under penalty of law, the company, contrary to its commercial well-being, and its employees, against their will and conscience, to create new software.
The argument that code is speech would relate to the 1st Amendment argument, but the fact their labour is being forced against their will is what puts it at odds with the 14th. The government is effectively conscripting Apple employees, which is not really constitutional.
This time it's code, but what's next? Who can say, but as long as the government can claim it's somehow related to something it is concerned with then a sympathetic (bought) judge will sign off on it and if you have pockets less deep than Apple's you may not be able to go toe-to-toe with the FBI.
As soon as the government can force you to do whatever they want they cease to be your public servants and become your owners. Apple's 14th amendment defence really doesn't seem so silly now.
Every time anyone wants to talk to another person they should have to register the fact with the government so it can be recorded and searched in future if necessary.
What, too far?
Maybe we should monitor the authorities to ensure they act?
Make a nice change from them actually benefitting (assuming they want more powers and access) from their own failures.
Locks on cockpit doors.
That was all that was needed in response to 9/11.
We should also have face recognition cameras everywhere so we know who's where in public. And infrared cameras too so we can see what people are up to indoors, lest they be doing something illegal, and we need to have a way to listen in lest they be plotting.
C'mon, we all know all people are up to no good and the fine upstanding plod need every assistance going to catch the filthy law breaking scum who make up the 'public'.
This has been a public service announcement for the BBC. It all started with their scanners.
It's a wonder how sport survived before TV.
"What's wrong with dying in a head-on collision with Elizabeth Taylor?"
Depends whether it's in a car or not.
"assuming that none of its battery power is used to power a heated compartment"
Not bloody likely in Australia, mate.
"sugary carbonated products through our water pipes"
So the nanny state could "sugar tax" me every time I flush the toilet or take a shower, no thanks.
Would certainly make a dog's life more difficult. Imagine trying to chase that thing away from your letterbox.
So, who are you voting for to be our gaolers at the next election?
@cynic, you were "in May" last year?
Indiscriminate, non consensual, compulsory public monitoring and recording device.
I see what you did there...
Pretty small number of children, the majority would be looking for work not benefits. Which is why seeing a massive influx of low wage seeking people in certain areas would lead the low skilled in those areas to resent the immigrants, regardless of the actual impact on jobs and wages in those areas.
From the ONS:
"Of those immigrating for work-related reasons in the year ending September 2014, 62% (167,000) came with a definite job to go to and 38% (104,000) came to look for work."
"Or are you erroneously assuming that everyone who does not have a job is claiming benefits?"
I guess not. Seems your perception of my point is what is erroneous.
OTOH a small number are coming for medical treatment and are disproportionately expensive, but that's nothing to do with the issue at hand.
"Given that net migration within the EU is probably a lot less than you actually think"
Ignoring what I think, let's see what net migration actually is:
330,000 in year ending March 2015 (BBC) approx. 200k had jobs, meaning 130k did not.
If you're looking for work, or a better job, and see this influx of people, bearing in mind they are not evenly spread across the country, then it is easy to see this as a major issue if they're coming into the same segment of the job market as you are in. But if you're a middle class programmer it's probably easier to dismiss such claims as Murdoch hysteria and right wing Tory propaganda.
There are 850k Polish people in the UK, more than Indians, which I don't care about, but I can see the same resentment towards the Eastern Europeans among many people that I recall people having towards Indians and Pakistanis in the early 80s. And it's working, and not-working, class people that mainly have this issue as it's easy to blame 'the other' for your low wages, poor prospects and lack of success, regardless of where the fault actually lies.
So all those traditional Labour supporters who think the EU has led to mass migration from Eastern Europe leading to native unemployment, benefits abuse and lower low-skilled wages are what, told what to think by Murdoch rather than what they see down the local job centre? People being offered jobs at wages they can barely live on but told that someone will take it if they don't are not actually hearing that but simply being confused by the Murdoch media?
Large states -> large bureaucracies -> centralisation of power -> wielding of power -> war or totalitarianism or both
Small states -> petty bureaucracies -> decentralisation of power -> very little power to wield -> parochial squabbles over putting your bins out and keeping your garden tidy
Over-simplified? Maybe. But it makes a kind of intuitive sense.
"The report also voices another serious concern that the impact of this extreme legislation will be felt around the world, and copied by other countries."
Next they'll be telling us we can't invade countries without good reason, abduct people and hold them without a trial, or torture people because "it might set a bad example".