"Holder’s Justice Department has actually had a very impressive record on civil rights cases."
Holder's pro-civil-rights record is a lot like Obama's pro-whistleblower record.
That is, they're aggressive in pursuing anyone outside the administration, vicious in protecting abuses committed by inside the administration.
Erodogan could learn some subtlety from the US. The US Gov doesn't blame the Social Media for an educated citizenry.
Instead, US Gov officials heap praise upon the Internet while partnering with corporations to increasingly chill it's use through control, monitoring and judicial actions.
Meanwhile: CFAA forces join up to form monster org representing Billions in pro-CISPA, max-CFAA interests.
ABM, the association of business information and media companies, and the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) announced today that they plan to merge in order to form the comprehensive, global business information and media industry association.
The CFAA was the subject of several proposed legislative reforms in 2012, and SIIA has been engaged, seeking to preserve the ability of SIIA members to use the CFAA to deter and prevent unauthorized access to or misuse of databases, subscription services and cloud services.
The CFAA carries civil as well as criminal provisions, and it has long been considered an effective tool for protecting business databases.
(sadly) Lobbyists for employees have sought to narrow the CFAA to prevent its use against employees.
But their proposed narrowing of the statute could also diminish its usefulness in protecting private databases, and ABM has joined other database companies in opposing the amendment.
I'm sure the best is yet to come and we'll be hearing from our new Global Business Information and Media Industry Association overlords soon enough.
I never drew such a broad conclusion; you came to that on your own. I outlined causes+effects that are causing real-life grief.
I didn't cherry-pick those C+E to force an inaccurate conclusion either. If I had, it could be easily disproved by adding whatever info I omitted.
Here's a restatement of my point.
1) The US Gov is by far the single biggest financial player in the US healthcare system.
2) Stipulations for reimbursement by the US Gov are onerously complex. This problem is at least a generation old and it continues to worsen.
3a) Complex regulations almost always favor larger players who can more easily dedicate resources needed to cope with them.
3b)US medical corporations have every motivation to lobby US legislators to structure Gov regulations to favor their industry. US legislators will continue to to respond favorably to industry lobbying.
If you put on me to draw a conclusion, it would be this.
Neither the US Gov nor US corporations posses sufficient ethical responsibility to be entrusted with our healthcare.
. . . while independent doctors are closing their shops
I live in the retiree capital of the US and we have no shortage of patients for doctors to care for.
Nevertheless, in the last decade over half of our independent physicians (primarily GPs) have closed their practices to join larger medical groups, move from the area or just retire early. They've found it increasingly unprofitable to practice traditional medicine.
A predictable exception are surgical specialists, most of whom work as an attending physician at a local hospital.
Another relevant note is that medical service providers here are being reimbursed at increasingly lower amounts - from both government and private sector insurance.
I have two customers that are established local service providers. One believes it will - unavoidably - become unprofitable within the next 18 months.
The other is realistically unsure of it's future and hopes to survive through streamlining the organization.
These are community driven companies.
They provide services that are in demand and they are immensely responsible with their operations.
But with new cuts from Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance coming each quarter, they (like our local physicians) are finding it less and less profitable to continue.
It's a meaningful piece of the Med-Ec nightmare puzzle.
Sect 5(a) Federal Agencies self-police that they're in compliance w/ Fair Info Practice Principles.
Sect 5(b) DHS agencies shall assess civil liberty risks and make a report available to DHS Secretary (but not us).
DHS agencies shall self-assess and add their results to Secretary's report (that we can't see because it'll contain classified 'annex').
Sect 5(c) DHS agencies shall have a chat about the report with Civil Liberties Oversight Board and Office of Management and Budget.
Sect 5(d)Info that is submitted in accordance with 6 U.S.C. §133 shall be protected from disclosure except where any one of a countless number of laws can potentially be applied to nullify those protections.
I'm so bothered by TechDirt's response that I'm posting about it a second time.
In setting up the We-the-People petitions site, the White House inferred that it was a effective way for citizens to connect to their government. Techdirt recently (and excellently) pointed out that the White House doesn't respond to petitions in a way that translate into meaningful change.
The petition site is a betrayal. It's a PR tool with a facade of government concern. The word that best describes it is fraud.
I cheered when Techdirt recounted their concerns with it.
In response to being outed, a talented WH staffer picks a substanceless petition and fills it with memes designed to placate the only community that challenged the site's credibility.
That community ate it up and took a turn at being the the White House's PR tool.
Today we have petitions on the table that mean something.
One is for the firing of the DA that profoundly abused her authority in prosecuting Aaron Swartz. It amassed 25k signatures in about 2 days.
A related and much more important petition demands the WH take the lead in reforming the often misused 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
It's signature uptake is slower and the petition may have difficulty finding folks who get what it does.
So if we heap praise on the White House for being clever when nothing is at stake, we risk reaffirming the thinking that Americans really aren't all that interested in changing what desperately needs to be changed.
And that is a terribly self-destructive thing for us to do.
I appreciate Mike's compassionate position on user ad blocking. I wanted to add that ads don't just add nuisance to a site, they're also a threat vector to the user.
Malware delivery happens in waves. One type delivers malicious payloads to users via infected ad servers. I block ads to reduce the risk of infection.
This applies to my customers as well. Every network I service has a local proxy server; it's primary purpose is to strip ad-laden content before it can load in a users browser. This reduces infection rates everywhere it's deployed, sometimes to zero.
With respect to the advertising industry:
Your cries that adblocking is selfish would have more credibility - if your industry were equally vocal about the real-world damages consumers suffer from the crap served to us by your industry.