Here's a link to the bill itself, the language is a bit more precise than the articles I've read about it state. For example, it specifically states that the data collection must be without the consent of the people who the data is collected on and without a warrant or valid court order to trigger this law.
Really? This is wonderful news. My district borders that one and sometimes I had to deal with improperly targeted advertisements for this guy. Maybe this most recent load of crap is just to build him up for his future audience?
I'm torn. I'm glad that I don't live in Rogers' district (although, if we lose any representatives in 2020, my district might be combined with that one) because I don't have to deal with the people who would elect someone like that to federal office. However, I almost want to live there so that I could try to vote him out of office.
It's been a couple years since I was last on the roadways in the Chicago area. Have they increased the freeway speed limits from 55 MPH yet? If not, how didn't they catch more speeders? I've never seen anyone doing less than 65 (myself included) unless the traffic was horrible.
Just as a note for #1, the passcode check there is pre-boot so it can't be keylogged since no apps are running yet (they're still encrypted after all). As for #4, I don't know about iOS but Android's device encryption is open source.
The Constitution only protects a person from having the federal government (and after the fourteenth amendment, states governments as well) limit their speech. Contracts between individuals or between a person and a company/corporation have always been able to limit speech. After all, that's what non-disclosure agreements do. This is necessary just as there are laws prohibiting contracts from being enforceable if they require a party to break the law.
Yeah, we live in a federal presidential constitutional republic. It's not a democracy since the people don't directly vote on laws at the national level. Which is nitpicking I know but, terminology is important.
I don't know why I haven't heard this point before. Of course mobile providers are under Title II since they're providing telephone service. They seem to be making money hand over fist. Why isn't anyone breaking down the wired ISP's points about not being able to improve their networks under Title II by pointing at the mobile providers? Am I missing something important?
This is quite true. The United States, at the national level, is a federal presidential constitutional republic. Our states are members of a 'federation' (the United States) rather than simply being administrative divisions of a unitary state. We have a President who is both head of state and head of the executive branch who is elected by the people separately from the legislature. Finally, we, according to our constitution, have a government where the power resides in and derives from the people which makes us a republic. Most, if not all, of our states have functionality where the public can directly vote on certain laws or amendments to state constitutions which makes them much closer to democracies than our federal government but, as the AC I'm replying to noted, the United States of America has never been an actual democracy.
The word 'slave' isn't present anywhere however one good example is the (since repealed of course) last paragraph of Article IV, Section 2 which reads:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
That section effectively forced non-slave states to respect the property rights of slaveholders from slave states as well as respecting contracts of indentured servitude written up in states where such things were legal.
A more recognised section would be from Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 which reads, in yet another repealed part:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The "three fifths of all other Persons" in that quote are slaves. Once again, no mention by name but the intent was there.
If you read the asterisked footnote for the leftmost bar, it says that the 4 mbps up / 1 mbps down data is actually for 3 mbps up / 768 kbps down since those are the closest speeds that the FCC has data for. You'll also note that the words up and down are reversed...although that's probably a typo that propagated through cut and paste.
Their data for ISP speeds are the maximums for your entire zip-code. If anyone can get 100 mbps from Comcast or 3 mbps from Verizon, they'll call Comcast 100 mbps-1 gbps+ and Verizon 3-6 mbps. That's a major part of why the numbers are so bad.
For example, my zip-code for example includes a large amount of farmland, a small city and some suburban apartments and houses in between. In the city there are a number of local wireless ISP's with reasonable speeds and rates but they don't provide reliable service to those of us in the less urban areas. Even so, they still show up as available on the map. On top of that, the DSLAM for the local DSL provider is in the city so the map shows 3-6 mbps for them even though they struggle to provide 1.5-3 mbps where I am a couple miles away.
At my address the national broadband map is actually rather accurate. At least where wired providers are concerned. It shows Charter (even though it only shows their highest tier) and Frontier. Charter provides a maximum of 100 mbps down for my address. Frontier sells a 6 mbps connection that, they confirmed, at my address would probably be somewhere between 1.5 and 3 mbps maximum. I don't live in an extremely rural area. I'm about 5 minutes outside of a city of just under 100,000. Where I live though, I have one choice if I'm going to be using Netflix (or cloud backups of my computer). That's a problem for me.
Bing and Yahoo are receiving and complying with these requests as well. The difference is that they aren't telling the sites in question that search results linking to their websites are being removed so, you don't hear much about them.
I came into the comments section to say this. I have three old systems here with no personal information on them (two don't even have OS'es installed right now) and I'd gladly join in this 'study'. Hell, I may even fire up the VM that I use to test shady executables and run it on my main machine.