The problem. Hmmm, not exactly huge, but why should they have special treatment?
Anyone else trying to do the same would be flagged as abusive by servers.
Spook agencies already slurp data their own way. Maybe they should actually be using data gained by their methods rather than every possible convenience of access ever.
You know they are mostly bothering people who don't do anything other than have an opinion, and only certain sorts, at that. They behave like everyone else who is "vigilant" about "terrorism", freaking out over someone doing algebra, but go ahead and publicly demonstrate for white, christian, right-wing insurrection and that is hunky-dory. Gee, make a lifelong career of it. (Whether the run files on them or not, they aren't the ones who mysteriously end up on no-fly lists, etc.)
More broadly, no on - not agencies or marketing arms of companies, properly minimize or anonymize and protect any data. Twitter firehose would be neither, by nature. And a very small percentage of the use of this sort of mass data is anything positive. And it could be. So why give access to such data to such poor stewards.
The public just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
And that deterrence thing - i sort of think it is another one of those things that is good to debunk, but it probably isn't the real reason, but merely one of those things offered to make something sound more rational (or believable or palatable or whatever). It's probably like most incarceration schemes: retributive only. Industry members really just want to smack someone with a stick when they don't follow their wishes. (And given the severe lack of actual commercial infringement cases we ever hear about anymore, and most commercial infringers being out of reach, we all know who this sentencing proposal will apply to.
Well now i am confused. All along i thought these were government services of of the town or county in New York, along with everything else with the moniker "Saratoga" attached to it. No wonder the services department laughs at me every time i call.
Could also have something to do with the fact that people find FB incredibly unresponsive to reports of anything. Unless it is breast feeding or people responding to harassment something like that. Then FB is magically all over it.
It's because "being offended" (or something someone decided to frame as "being offended") is the problem, a weakness. It isn't that someone says something wrong and bigoted whether anyone is offended or not. At least not anyone worth speaking of.
They always try to avoid a panic until they need to manufacture one. Don't maybe have a brief panic over something real, have this sustained panic until we get what we want, over something we made up for some reason. And oh yeah, it allowed that thing to happen that we didn't want you to panic about before. Feel free to panic about it now. But only with respect to this other thing we want to do.
Consequences of the (just barely, maybe) Good Enough and memory/processing is cheap cultural mindsets. (And devaluing actual knowledgeable people, and expanding the definition of "development" to include whatever.)
I was wondering about this "breaking sites / the internet" thing. I was imagining that all of them were somehow having their script called from some other domain where it is hosted (popular enough idiocy as it is) instead of having this bit of code and its environment hosted with their sites.
Really, everything has gotten incredibly stupid under the guise of innovation, but that concept sort of stretched my credulity a bit. So I am glad you commented, and i didn't have to post a whiskey tango alpha foxtrot comment blind.
I often wonder if there is a quantitative way to analyze at least what is known about domestic surveillance and other activities, and compare this across time. The FBI seems problematic at least half of the time, and the CIA was the super obvious illegal operator for decades. Maybe they didn't interface as much with local law enforcement, but there is enough history of them behaving badly throughout history.
It certainly seems that with increased capabilities, they are worse than ever, but how does the general illegal and quasi-legal activity and intent trend? And how much worse are they now with the increased capabilities and apparently less oversight and more support to just do whatever they like?
And really, at this point, could several successive administrations and Congresses change this institutional culture if they suddenly came over all sensible and were united against such things? The inertia must be staggering at this point.