This actually points to a more serious consequence. Other publishers wanting to know how engaging their content is, they should already know how much BS metrics are, without further revelation. Advertising industry, pff, well, they should know bullshit all the way around. Using metrics as a bludgeon by the copyright-monetizing sector; that is some actual consequence right there.
Police routinely misunderstand and abuse tech. If you want to look at it this way, consider "off-topic" stories as additional color concerning the people who are also heavily intertwined with tech and the way it affects us.
It's funny how these objections suddenly appear. This transition has been on this course for ages. And everyone must have missed the other 99% of internet functions moving from the from the hands of a few people at universities and corporations to various independent organizations. DARPA itself, never mind many of its projects, including the internet (which was a hobby and innovation of various university computer nerds), is not "the Federal government" but a cooperative network. The Feds do not own state universities or all the private corporations involved.
This has been working for years and will continue to work the same way. But if you want to whine, you really missed the ball when domain name registration was basically gifted to a private for-profit corporation which has made insane amounts of money ever since. (And has generally sucked in every incarnation.)
But the biggest fucking hoot is watching the right wingers cry and stamp their feet about the damn Federal government fully privatizing some function that it really no longer (and hardly ever did) have a link to anyway. OMFG. They will privatize the military, police, prisons, social security... just anything. But lol this scraping the name off the glass on the door of a disused office in the corner of the building no one ever goes to is just such an incomprehensible transgression of... well, something. I thinks it's USA! USA! USA! USA! That's probably it.
Oh, and the references to parkland are just endearing. Hey, that's the land that should be available to home and tourism developers, mining and drilling interests, and random moron ranchers for free. And someone might give it to China!
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. IANA/ICANN boards and working groups and the stakeholders they listen to are not going to change. It's already a government/private/globalist conspiracy. You haver already been soaking in it. For decades.
1) Republicans/Conservatives do this all the time. 2) Republican/Conservative is not a race, ethnicity, or any other unchangeable outward characteristic by which one is negatively judged. Nor are they a minority class disenfranchised and suffering from the unearned privilege of others. 3) It isn't bigotry to disagree with opposing ideas. Nor is calling names bigotry, unless it is using bigoted speech.
Sorry all theoretical conservatives get painted with a broad brush, but bad arguments like these just tend to reinforce the whole picking sides and hating the other game. Especially when using the oppressed majority / privileged group gambit.
Of course, anyone who identifies with R/D will tend to get labeled according to elements of that party's platform, policy, and actions. Even if it is in one's own head... #NotAllConservatives
No matter that companies with wire already on the poles do this all the time for repair or upgrade. Including AT&T. (Yes, go ahead and laugh at "upgrade", i know.) It's just someone new and competitive that violates their "rights". How clever.
Yes, and ten thousand other applications which will download from Youtube either incidentally or as a purpose-built feature. Or one can trawl their browser cache. One may discover for oneself the file URL and GET it if they want.
Oh dear. Well i suppose they will just have to make the internet illegal, which is apparently what they want anyway.
Re: Re: This is why self-driving cars must be banned
Theoretically, and on principal, there is no reason to ban them. (Or the non-self-driving equivalent trash that has been around for a while and getting only worse.) Realistically, practically, historically, no one is securing anything. They add vulnerabilities. Unnecessary ones at that. They add bugs.
Unless they are forced to treat IoT, cars and similar things especially, as military-grade in terms of hardening, not allowing unnecessary bundling of systems and limiting connectivity, with with a well coded and tested RTOS, well we are just waiting for worse things to happen. They always do. Rights and ideals or not, no innovation or market is going to cause these things to be fixed as they should be. It has not happened so far. Regulation is a crapshoot and then we have people discussing how much it hurts innovation with unnecessary burden. And it could make things worse. Or it could be entirely clueless.
I don't have any suggestions other than what you have already pointed out. Only no one is going to do it.
Well. Companies should be held accountable, and in some way better than attempted civil litigation. Not that the DHS should be within 20AU of any such thing. And who knows why he is addressing security experts with this. Maybe fair warning the DHS might do something else idiotic in their space. He should be addressing the companies with the slapdash product "innovation". Just like the security experts have been doing since... forever.
People also seem to think shipping and all are negligible costs, ignoring also the externalities and knock-on effects.
I have no idea what all is included in "integrity" for these particular sellers, and they may have worked up themselves way too much, and maybe i don't agree fully with them on reasons or reactions, but bad behavior is bad. Some people will factor in restocking fees as a cost of business... when business is good, like for these people. Some people will just see it as idiotic and wasteful and they aren't interested in supporting bad actors. (But then again they use Amazon so whatever.)
Except that flies in court, or is enough to threaten someone with in the first place, regardless what the law actually says. Judges do all sorts of weird things. But i hardly think this is Bahnof's point to begin with.