Why won't you support us rewriting reality to reflect our spin? We promised all of these great things, so what if there were hiccups in actually delivering on them. We totally will get around to them about the time we are forced to by bad press, as our 'friends' in high places that we TOTALLY don't "lobby" can't protect us forever.
It is nice to see them understand the issues presented by getting new toys, the desire to find ways to get to use them. Why talk to a subject when the pepperspray fogger is right there? Why serve a warrant, when we can play dress up and roll a whole swat team to remind Mr. Jenkins burning leaves is illegal? The best tool that officers have, is supposed to be their mind. Showing up dressed for a riot, changes the mindset of everyone involved. Bigger & better toys just crank everything up, when all that was needed was a polite word & understanding.
The other fall out from having to use the new toys, is finding ways to justify actions that shouldn't have been taken. Protecting the 'image' is more important that reigning in a cop who has gone to far. More and more gets excused, and then the tears that the public isn't supporting them. There is a disconnect that these actions are tied to each other, blaming everything but the real problems.
Accountability is required from both sides, the problem is for us acting like a jerk can end up with hospital stay. For them it at best seems to be a paid vacation to enjoy having gotten away with it again.
So if Bobby forwarded a picture to Timmy, without Timmy asking for it to be sent Timmy can get taken down as well.
This seems like an amazingly good use of resources. o_O
Perhaps some grownups can stop thinking of this as some sort of evil porn trading conspiracy and arrange for some assemblies. Explain how badly this can go, that before you send a picture like that to anyone understand they might show it to others.
Rather than scare them with the full weight of the law, perhaps treating them like kids who didn't know any better would be a better play. If you don't explain it to them, you can't expect them to know any better. We no longer dare teach sex education and a majority of 'net teaching is about not telling the stranger you are home alone and unlocking the door for them.
I do think it would be appropriate to make sure no one was forced to join in, but to remember there is a difference between peer pressure and actual threats/abuse.
This case should make an impression, that the law isn't keeping up with reality. Pretending that your kid would NEVER do something like this no longer works. The law should protect kids but at the same time treat kids experimenting like kids experimenting, not as sexual deviants preying on others.
Or should the state just start using all of the extra income to build little one room prison schools to keep all of these new sex offender registry recipients away from each other?
And how many times have we seen members of the EU demand something to save the publishers, then given exactly what they demanded, and then complaining that it isn't doing what they wanted? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the a different result, at some point cooler heads need to be listened to and prevail against this tone deaf clinging to how things were 100 years ago.
The world is constantly changing and we need to stop saving those who refuse to adapt. This isn't an overnight change, they have squandered decades fighting a battle they can never really win without destroying the things they need to survive. Expanding liability in this way will only serve to make more people ignore the stupid law, and think about replacing those who put stupid demands into law at the expense of the public.
There should not be a fee, and it should be submitted to the DoNotCall people to investigate. If they are reporting a capture of the real information it still might take 3 complaints for them to move (we all know that one dumbass who wonders what the big red button is for, is told, is told not to press it unless, and then promptly presses it to see for themselves) to avoid false positives.
As it stands now we report the data from caller id strings that are manipulated, if they sent the real information action would happen sooner. I avoid many of the robodialers who call my landline, but if I knew I could answer, tell them do not call, then hang up, then hit a star code & press a button to designate if it was sales, scam, etc I'd probably answer the phone more.
As it stands now we have people blocking using apps or hardware on landlines but that data isn't always shared and doesn't do anything but keep them from reaching you on THAT spoofed number. A * report that turns over the actual information would keep them from reaching you because they got closed down.
So when they leak, it is always a good thing. When other leak, it is always a bad thing.
Yet the law makes no distinction about good leaks vs bad leaks. Given the amount of meta-data they have access to it should be easy to identify those people who violated their oaths and punish them to the fullest extent of the law as they demand for others who have done the same thing.
If they do not investigate these leaks (which we know they will not) they really need to just admit the law is only to be used against those that make them look bad. Many other people can see this clearly and need to make more noise about it. This isn't a red or blue thing, this is something showing the hubris and rot inside the system. They place themselves and their friends above the law, and this is not how a healthy nation operates.
It should be fun to see how they react as they tried to play the 'it's just meta-data' card. On the one hand they can spin some story about not releasing it because security... but then they have to admit it is useful information. On the other hand they could release it... and have people construct a very useful timeline revealing all sorts of things using only 'meta-data'.
It is nice to see a politician backed into a corner where there is no good answer that doesn't destroy their own arguments.
Law Enforcement Domestic Abuse Shelters Legitimate Call Centers I am sure there are a couple others not popping to mind right now.
There are very few legitimate uses of spoofing, and it would be complicated to construct a framework for this. That being said trying to construct it and having some failures is way better than just throwing the hands up and saying can't be done.
Money is being made selling caller id services & selling spoofing services so there is little interest on the business side of ending that income.
We have *69 to call back numbers, why not a star code to dial after an unwanted robocall that traps the actual information to track it back to the source. No more having to dial 1 during a recording to get on their do not call list for legitimate marketers and a compiled list of those doing wrong. No more filing a long complaint form online that won't actually change anything, but instant filing of the data.
But that is where we take a turn into the uncharted wilds, fair use is in the eye of the beholder. And the liability for the platform is huge, so they nuke form orbit. Then the person who "runs" the store, has to engage in the fight in a process heavily weighted to copyright holders.
One need only look at the "Dancing Baby" case to see how much fun that task can be.
There is no downside to overreach on claims, doubling down when you are wrong, and so much more. There are huge downsides for platforms who don't jump high enough and for users fighting against a system that refuses to be fair.
The estate made a blanket statement without identifying the actual allegedly infringing works, so CafePress identified everything that could remotely be considered Orwell IP and went wild.
Even by the most generous reading of the law over takedowns, not identifying the specific work makes it defective. When you just demand a 3rd party decide what you have rights to, you end up with idiocy like this.
Why settle for just arresting them on bogus charges for contempt of cop when you can try to ruin his life? Making false statements is a crime when use little people say them to cops, why isn't it a crime when cops do it to try and crush an innocent who took them to task?