|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 12 2017 02:36 HalcyonRain wrote:
I can't help but think firing Comey on Tuesday was completely on purpose. Like he decided he was going to fire Comey a long time ago and he was just saving it for a time where it would make the media go into a frenzy(cuz that's what gets him off). So he fires him 2 days before he's supposed to appear in the Senate Intelligence Committee's annual World Wide Threat hearing, in which he probably would have talked about Russia. This is also after a rumor about Comey asking for increased funding.
I dunno, I probably read too many books.
Either way the Legislative branch will grind to a halt while they're dealing with Trump's constant "distractions". Well maybe not a halt, but certainly very slow.
How about the timing a day before Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meets with Tillerson and then Trump? But right now the Left needs no special encouragement; they do fine on their own paranoid inventions.
I'd like tax reform and the border wall sooner rather than later, but I can't help liking the idea of some legislative gridlock. You can't grow government as fast when no progress is made on big spending projects and additional entitlements.
|
On May 12 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 02:36 HalcyonRain wrote:
I can't help but think firing Comey on Tuesday was completely on purpose. Like he decided he was going to fire Comey a long time ago and he was just saving it for a time where it would make the media go into a frenzy(cuz that's what gets him off). So he fires him 2 days before he's supposed to appear in the Senate Intelligence Committee's annual World Wide Threat hearing, in which he probably would have talked about Russia. This is also after a rumor about Comey asking for increased funding.
I dunno, I probably read too many books.
Either way the Legislative branch will grind to a halt while they're dealing with Trump's constant "distractions". Well maybe not a halt, but certainly very slow. How about the timing a day before Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meets with Tillerson and then Trump? But right now the Left needs no special encouragement; they do fine on their own paranoid inventions. I'd like tax reform and the border wall sooner rather than later, but I can't help liking the idea of some legislative gridlock. You can't grow government as fast when no progress is made on big spending projects and additional entitlements.
I am extraordinarily curious to find out what you think over the next few days, Danglars, as warrants get executed.
|
Kinda sad to see people on an internet gaming forum, thus likely to be computer literate to at least some extent, arguing in favor of internet regulations. I understand when it comes from old people who think internet is just hackers and porn, but you guys?
Internet is the last place with a remote possibility of free speech, thanks to an almost miraculous inability of the anti-free speech forces to understand it properly in time. I don't want to give that up because you can't stand people saying mean things online.
|
On May 12 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 02:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:
Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter.
This is actually a legal problem, which you as a legal professional should know. Twitter knows the IP of the person sending those threats. ISPs know where that IP roughly belongs, which is good enough to narrow down to possible suspects, which is enough for police to investigate. It's actually stupidly easy for the "tech industry" as a whole to find someone. The problem is police jurisdiction, international borders, cost/value analysis for tracking down a single online "threat", and the difficulty of getting a warrant/subpoena/whatever to force a service provider to take private information and give it to the police. And all of that can be solved through updating regulations that governed the internet and websites, most of which were written in an era of dial up internet. My local police department shouldn’t have to get into protracted litigation with Comcast just to find out where a threatening tweet came from. Not in an era of Iphones and mandatory use of the internet to be employed.
I mean, unless your idea of updating regulation is "ISPs must handover all information that government agencies request of them", then changing regulations does nothing. And I imagine you'd have a serious problem if government bodies had free access to your life.
Comcast has to respond to warrants just like everyone else. The problem is that it's hard to get a warrant when police can't show that the target is someone under their jurisdiction, show that there is sufficient reason to justify an investigation, etc. Which leads to police, FBI, etc. trying to shortcut legal processes.
I mean, you essentially want warrants to be easier to get, except as a legal professional you'd rather the tech industry to solve the legal system as opposed to the law being changed to match the situation.
|
On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Citizen united made this all possible. We used to have a nice, controlled way to fund elections that only lasted a limited period of time. The Government had to fight with the news networks to cover the conventions because the ratings were always bad.
Those were the days. When politics was the boring shit that no one wanted on their TV and candidates needed federal support just to run their bid for president. Now it is just uncontrolled money for god knows where promising god knows what.
Not just citizens united. Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do.
Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.”
|
On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Citizen united made this all possible. We used to have a nice, controlled way to fund elections that only lasted a limited period of time. The Government had to fight with the news networks to cover the conventions because the ratings were always bad.
Those were the days. When politics was the boring shit that no one wanted on their TV and candidates needed federal support just to run their bid for president. Now it is just uncontrolled money for god knows where promising god knows what.
Not just citizens united. Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.”
How do you create regulation that adequately covers that problem, while not quickly becoming obsolete in an age of accelerating developments in AI and other technology?
|
On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Citizen united made this all possible. We used to have a nice, controlled way to fund elections that only lasted a limited period of time. The Government had to fight with the news networks to cover the conventions because the ratings were always bad.
Those were the days. When politics was the boring shit that no one wanted on their TV and candidates needed federal support just to run their bid for president. Now it is just uncontrolled money for god knows where promising god knows what.
Not just citizens united. Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.”
So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist?
|
On May 12 2017 03:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:
Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter.
This is actually a legal problem, which you as a legal professional should know. Twitter knows the IP of the person sending those threats. ISPs know where that IP roughly belongs, which is good enough to narrow down to possible suspects, which is enough for police to investigate. It's actually stupidly easy for the "tech industry" as a whole to find someone. The problem is police jurisdiction, international borders, cost/value analysis for tracking down a single online "threat", and the difficulty of getting a warrant/subpoena/whatever to force a service provider to take private information and give it to the police. And all of that can be solved through updating regulations that governed the internet and websites, most of which were written in an era of dial up internet. My local police department shouldn’t have to get into protracted litigation with Comcast just to find out where a threatening tweet came from. Not in an era of Iphones and mandatory use of the internet to be employed. I mean, unless your idea of updating regulation is "ISPs must handover all information that government agencies request of them", then changing regulations does nothing. And I imagine you'd have a serious problem if government bodies had free access to your life. Comcast has to respond to warrants just like everyone else. The problem is that it's hard to get a warrant when police can't show that the target is someone under their jurisdiction, show that there is sufficient reason to justify an investigation, etc. Which leads to police, FBI, etc. trying to shortcut legal processes. I mean, you essentially want warrants to be easier to get, except as a legal professional you'd rather the tech industry to solve the legal system as opposed to the law being changed to match the situation.
I want regulations updated and I want the discussions on how to deal with the modern issues the internet presents. From cyber bullying to doxing. If someone posts my medical records against my will on 4chan or reddit, I want to be able to bring a civil action against that person.
|
On May 12 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:
Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter.
This is actually a legal problem, which you as a legal professional should know. Twitter knows the IP of the person sending those threats. ISPs know where that IP roughly belongs, which is good enough to narrow down to possible suspects, which is enough for police to investigate. It's actually stupidly easy for the "tech industry" as a whole to find someone. The problem is police jurisdiction, international borders, cost/value analysis for tracking down a single online "threat", and the difficulty of getting a warrant/subpoena/whatever to force a service provider to take private information and give it to the police. And all of that can be solved through updating regulations that governed the internet and websites, most of which were written in an era of dial up internet. My local police department shouldn’t have to get into protracted litigation with Comcast just to find out where a threatening tweet came from. Not in an era of Iphones and mandatory use of the internet to be employed. I mean, unless your idea of updating regulation is "ISPs must handover all information that government agencies request of them", then changing regulations does nothing. And I imagine you'd have a serious problem if government bodies had free access to your life. Comcast has to respond to warrants just like everyone else. The problem is that it's hard to get a warrant when police can't show that the target is someone under their jurisdiction, show that there is sufficient reason to justify an investigation, etc. Which leads to police, FBI, etc. trying to shortcut legal processes. I mean, you essentially want warrants to be easier to get, except as a legal professional you'd rather the tech industry to solve the legal system as opposed to the law being changed to match the situation. I want regulations updated and I want the discussions on how to deal with the modern issues the internet presents. From cyber bullying to doxing. If someone posts my medical records against my will on 4chan or reddit, I want to be able to bring a civil action against that person.
OK. You already can. Now what?
|
On May 12 2017 03:10 opisska wrote:
Kinda sad to see people on an internet gaming forum, thus likely to be computer literate to at least some extent, arguing in favor of internet regulations. I understand when it comes from old people who think internet is just hackers and porn, but you guys?
Internet is the last place with a remote possibility of free speech, thanks to an almost miraculous inability of the anti-free speech forces to understand it properly in time. I don't want to give that up because you can't stand people saying mean things online.
Yea it is, people get too offended over words - I just brush it off and keep on moving because at the end of the day, I'm still alive and healthy. And that's one of the issues now a days, people get too offended over the dumbest shit. This is why we have an egomaniac in office.
|
On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Citizen united made this all possible. We used to have a nice, controlled way to fund elections that only lasted a limited period of time. The Government had to fight with the news networks to cover the conventions because the ratings were always bad.
Those were the days. When politics was the boring shit that no one wanted on their TV and candidates needed federal support just to run their bid for president. Now it is just uncontrolled money for god knows where promising god knows what.
Not just citizens united. Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist?
Does anyone really need the google search results to not be racist? I get people are offended, but can we just learn to ignore that already?
|
On May 12 2017 03:06 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On May 12 2017 02:36 HalcyonRain wrote:
I can't help but think firing Comey on Tuesday was completely on purpose. Like he decided he was going to fire Comey a long time ago and he was just saving it for a time where it would make the media go into a frenzy(cuz that's what gets him off). So he fires him 2 days before he's supposed to appear in the Senate Intelligence Committee's annual World Wide Threat hearing, in which he probably would have talked about Russia. This is also after a rumor about Comey asking for increased funding.
I dunno, I probably read too many books.
Either way the Legislative branch will grind to a halt while they're dealing with Trump's constant "distractions". Well maybe not a halt, but certainly very slow. How about the timing a day before Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meets with Tillerson and then Trump? But right now the Left needs no special encouragement; they do fine on their own paranoid inventions. I'd like tax reform and the border wall sooner rather than later, but I can't help liking the idea of some legislative gridlock. You can't grow government as fast when no progress is made on big spending projects and additional entitlements. I am extraordinarily curious to find out what you think over the next few days, Danglars, as warrants get executed.
Wait a second, you're saying the Russia investigation is continuing even after Comey was fired? Oh god, this totally contradicts me when I said three times the Russia investigation will continue. As in no coverup will happen from this.
|
On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Citizen united made this all possible. We used to have a nice, controlled way to fund elections that only lasted a limited period of time. The Government had to fight with the news networks to cover the conventions because the ratings were always bad.
Those were the days. When politics was the boring shit that no one wanted on their TV and candidates needed federal support just to run their bid for president. Now it is just uncontrolled money for god knows where promising god knows what.
Not just citizens united. Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist?
That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that.
What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable?
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/332868-paul-ryan-rejects-calls-for-special-prosecutor-in-russia-investigation
If you read the article, Ryan is peddling total BS.
"I think the intelligence committees are the ones that should do this, because, don’t forget that the methods and sources of our intelligence gathering are also at play here, and we have to be very sensitive so that we don’t compromise that information as well."
There is no increased risk of compromise with a special prosecutor. Ryan is not technically lying here I think, but it comes pretty damn close.
|
On May 12 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:
Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter.
This is actually a legal problem, which you as a legal professional should know. Twitter knows the IP of the person sending those threats. ISPs know where that IP roughly belongs, which is good enough to narrow down to possible suspects, which is enough for police to investigate. It's actually stupidly easy for the "tech industry" as a whole to find someone. The problem is police jurisdiction, international borders, cost/value analysis for tracking down a single online "threat", and the difficulty of getting a warrant/subpoena/whatever to force a service provider to take private information and give it to the police. And all of that can be solved through updating regulations that governed the internet and websites, most of which were written in an era of dial up internet. My local police department shouldn’t have to get into protracted litigation with Comcast just to find out where a threatening tweet came from. Not in an era of Iphones and mandatory use of the internet to be employed. I mean, unless your idea of updating regulation is "ISPs must handover all information that government agencies request of them", then changing regulations does nothing. And I imagine you'd have a serious problem if government bodies had free access to your life. Comcast has to respond to warrants just like everyone else. The problem is that it's hard to get a warrant when police can't show that the target is someone under their jurisdiction, show that there is sufficient reason to justify an investigation, etc. Which leads to police, FBI, etc. trying to shortcut legal processes. I mean, you essentially want warrants to be easier to get, except as a legal professional you'd rather the tech industry to solve the legal system as opposed to the law being changed to match the situation. I want regulations updated and I want the discussions on how to deal with the modern issues the internet presents. From cyber bullying to doxing. If someone posts my medical records against my will on 4chan or reddit, I want to be able to bring a civil action against that person.
You should be able to bring action against whoever was responsible for keeping those secretary. You don't need any internet regulations for that, that's between you and your healthcare provider. I don't want any mechanisms that would allow you to go after the person who actually published it to exist.
|
On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
Not just citizens united.
Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable?
I agree these are interesting questions, but the way you worded the post I replied to sounded like you definitively wanted accountability which to me would imply you thought accountability was feasible. So I was prodding to see what you had in mind.
|
On May 12 2017 03:18 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
Not just citizens united.
Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? Does anyone really need the google search results to not be racist? I get people are offended, but can we just learn to ignore that already?
One of the largest media providers and companies in the world that provides millions with news and people are supposed to ignore it? Google fixed the issue within a day, to their credit.
On May 12 2017 03:23 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power.
Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter.
I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? I agree these are interesting questions, but the way you worded the post I replied to sounded like you definitively wanted accountability which to me would imply you thought accountability was feasible. So I was prodding to see what you had in mind.
I don’t think there are simple solutions. But as the internet and these companies grow in size and scope, I’m less comfortable with the lack of discussion about how they should be regulated and the default position that “government bad, internet good”. To be honest, I feel I have more power to influence my local government and US senator than Google or reddit.
|
President Trump on Thursday threatened to withhold key payments to insurance companies made under ObamaCare, a move that could throw the market into chaos.
In an interview with The Economist, Trump said he would cut off the cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) — payments that reimburse insurers for providing discounted out-of-pocket costs to help those with low incomes afford insurance.
"[T]here is no Obamacare, it’s dead. Plus we’re subsidizing it and we don’t have to subsidize it. You know if I ever stop wanting to pay the subsidies, which I will," Trump said. "Anytime I want."
Insurance companies rely on the payments, and many have said they will be forced to raise premiums or completely drop out of the ObamaCare marketplace if the payments don't continue.
The CSRs amount to about $7 billion a year and are currently being made by the Executive Branch, but the payments could be stopped at any time due to an ongoing lawsuit filed by House Republicans during the Obama administration.
The House GOP argued in their suit that the payments were unconstitutional because Congress didn't approve them. The House won, but the administration appealed, and the payments have continued ever since. If Trump drops the appeal, the payments will end.
Democrats had hoped to include funding for the CSR payments in the year-end government spending bill last month, but those payments were left out when the administration agreed to temporarily continue funding them. But Trump has warned that the payments may not go beyond this month.
"No, this bill only gives them one month. They don’t realize that," Trump said in the interview
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/332953-trump-threatens-to-stop-obamacare-payments
|
On May 12 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:06 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On May 12 2017 02:36 HalcyonRain wrote:
I can't help but think firing Comey on Tuesday was completely on purpose. Like he decided he was going to fire Comey a long time ago and he was just saving it for a time where it would make the media go into a frenzy(cuz that's what gets him off). So he fires him 2 days before he's supposed to appear in the Senate Intelligence Committee's annual World Wide Threat hearing, in which he probably would have talked about Russia. This is also after a rumor about Comey asking for increased funding.
I dunno, I probably read too many books.
Either way the Legislative branch will grind to a halt while they're dealing with Trump's constant "distractions". Well maybe not a halt, but certainly very slow. How about the timing a day before Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meets with Tillerson and then Trump? But right now the Left needs no special encouragement; they do fine on their own paranoid inventions. I'd like tax reform and the border wall sooner rather than later, but I can't help liking the idea of some legislative gridlock. You can't grow government as fast when no progress is made on big spending projects and additional entitlements. I am extraordinarily curious to find out what you think over the next few days, Danglars, as warrants get executed. Wait a second, you're saying the Russia investigation is continuing even after Comey was fired? Oh god, this totally contradicts me when I said three times the Russia investigation will continue. As in no coverup will happen from this.
No no, I didn't mean that you thought it was going to stop. I mean that I want to see your reactions to what the warrants uncover. Because if we have seen this much Russian shit already with publically available info, what is the level of the stuff about to come out? I wonder just how far you will continue to defend Trump.
|
On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:37 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 02:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
Not just citizens united.
Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for the rise of the right-wing talk radio giants like Rush and Hannity. Clinton's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the first major change in these regulations in almost a century, is what allowed the consolidation of many disparate forms of media under the umbrella of a single megacorp. For example, Murdoch could not have owned both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal under the old regulations. I would vote in a heartbeat for anyone who campaigned on repealing or overturning all 3 of those decisions. The Legacy of the baby boomers: The unfounded delusions that they were beyond all the things that the generation before them passed laws to prevent. Endless deregulation of institutions based on some foolish belief that they wouldn’t abuse their power. Even Obama fell for this with the tech industry, who should have been regulated long ago. Now you need a full Mission Impossible team just to hunt down some 20 year old sending you death threats over twitter. I think you are conflating two separate things in your last 2 sentences. Legal regulations on the tech industry need reform, particularly when it comes to stuff like patent trolls. But that has nothing to do with the technical difficulty of deanonymizing people over the Internet. That is a technical problem, not a legal one. It is both a technical and legal problem. In 1996 all websites and servers were given a liability shield for things posted on their sites/servers by third parties. As long as they moderate their site/server, they cannot be held liable for anything that is posted on it, including child pornography. This liability shield allows sites like TL to exist. But is also protects sites like Facebook, reddit and twitter, which are publicly owned and worth billions upon billions. Twitter wouldn’t be so comfortable with anonymous users if it was held to the similar standards as a news paper or print publication. Of course some version of this protection needs to exist. But we have moved beyond the era of scrappy start ups and sites like Facebook and TL shouldn’t be treated the same. One is basically a modern media site and the other is a private message board. Is this the rationale that allows Facebook to claim it's not a news service? Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on. Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation. If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable?
Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
