Using research I've performed that includes the Internet Archive and DomainTools, I've helped clients successfully litigate smaller cases - good to see this is getting more weight at the federal level.
I would NOT want to go back. Didn't say I would. I want CBS (which I can get OTA, and am working on setting up), the NFL network, all NFL games regardless of station, and like three or maybe four other channels.
I don't want ANY extra crap, because then I have to PAY for the extra crap just to watch the handful of channels I want to watch.
Now that I actually live at the beach, I have no desire to spend more than a few hours watching TV anyhow. So again, don't force me to have to buy a bundle, or a bundle-light bullshit option.
After debating this forever, in my latest move to a new place, I finally cut the cord this past week. Only a few days in, I'm finding two feelings.
1. OMG look at all this free time I have. 2. OMG look at all this free time I have.
It's bizarre. And I like it.
Eventually someone will need to come out with true a-la-carte options where the combination of the few I actually WANT won't add up to a current cable bill that includes 8 bazillion channels I never watch.
Until then, OMG look at all this free time I have!
this is my concern. Nobody seems to care that Salt Marsh has never been located, and none of the court procedures have delved into that fact. Such a shame. I guess we'll never know.
since I work in search marketing, I've had clients hire me to help with their online reputation. I don't always take them on as clients (Streisand effect, etc.)
Once in a while, it's much more complicated. I had one client where a competitor hired an agency to post false content all around the web, mostly on sites that stand behind the "we just host it" claim.
Even though my client won the legal battle, the posters had been "an outside agency", and used false profiles. Just to get the first court process done took two years and $100,000.
To actually get a court to direct those sites to remove that content (since the "anonymous John Does" and their "agency" were unreachable) was expected to take at least another two years. And that much more money.
Seriously. It's a major problem.
Sure, I think forcing search engines to take down links is a mostly horrific path, the system is critically broken as it is, and real human lives, livelihoods and reputations are ruined all the time by malicious troll behavior and actions.
Actually that's a false flag claim under various circumstances.
One that comes to mind is if information is posted that is flagrantly false, (as has been claimed in such cases all the time), then it has nothing to do with erasing history. It has every thing to do with restoring credibility where it is rightly due.
Only immature people think "if its on the internet, it must be true, and should become part of history".
Thank you Senator Wyden for taking the time to so clearly and concisely refute the continued lies, deception and twisting of facts coming from people who, while vital to the interests of our country, are obviously drunk with power, ego and arrogance.
Used to freak out knowing I was approaching a red light camera intersection back when I lived in the SF bay area. Then, this year when I made plans to move to Arizona, started reading old blog posts about Redflex and their scammy ways. Total relief when I learned killing off the Redflex Plague there was already a done deal.
Unfettered capitalism. Greed, control, arrogance. This is why some laws are just necessary in a society, even if we want more freedom than we get most of the time.
I audit 60 to 80 sites a year. From the smallest mom-pop to enterprise global sites with hundreds of millions of pages.
The vast majority of sites are owned and maintained by small business owners who don't know what they're doing, and barely can afford to implement fundamental necessities, yet they do so nonetheless, and that allows them to participate in the digital community.
As much as I personally would prefer that every site be set up, maintained and upgraded by qualified professionals, it's not realistic in the current environment.
Worse still, I've seen more than several developers screw up some of what I consider the most fundamental technical changes necessary for a site to function.
Then, in the long term, the vendor might decide to represent non-secure origins in the same way that they represent Bad origins.
Most consumers could well make assumptions (correctly or incorrectly) from how its presented. "WARNING - THIS SITE IS UNSECURE" implies danger.
It wouldn't be unrealistic to assume that many consumers interpret that to be "so dangerous that I should avoid it, without thinking through what this really means in this situation".
As a User Experience professional, I have seen all too often that a majority of end users have a very difficult time applying critical thought to their online decision making process.
So the question here then - does the good outweigh the bad? I say too many site owners who are incapable of adapting will suffer.
I hate social engineering. If a site is informational only, there's absolutely no reason to force it into an HTTPS status. To eventually make it APPEAR that an HTTP site is somehow BAD, or DANGEROUS is a horrific notion.
There are so many perfectly legitimate, valid, helpful and worthy sites that won't go to HTTPS for a plethora of reasons this effort will only hurt more than it helps.
I disagree. If you're not going to allow proper https functionality, the correct best practices functionality should have the https version automatically redirect via 301 server redirect to the non https version.
This ensures that anyone getting to the page will actually get a page.
What are the risks?
I don't see there being significant risks - they're already a neutral aggregator.
(untitled comment)
Using research I've performed that includes the Internet Archive and DomainTools, I've helped clients successfully litigate smaller cases - good to see this is getting more weight at the federal level.
Re: Re: Finally a cord cutter
I would NOT want to go back. Didn't say I would. I want CBS (which I can get OTA, and am working on setting up), the NFL network, all NFL games regardless of station, and like three or maybe four other channels.
I don't want ANY extra crap, because then I have to PAY for the extra crap just to watch the handful of channels I want to watch.
Now that I actually live at the beach, I have no desire to spend more than a few hours watching TV anyhow. So again, don't force me to have to buy a bundle, or a bundle-light bullshit option.
Re: Finally a cord cutter
and to be clear, I make more friggin money than I ever have. (in the "over $200k" range). So for me, it's not about cost savings.
It's about the stupidity of 20th century head-in-the-sand horse-and-buggy models kicking and screaming into the next century.
Finally a cord cutter
After debating this forever, in my latest move to a new place, I finally cut the cord this past week. Only a few days in, I'm finding two feelings.
1. OMG look at all this free time I have.
2. OMG look at all this free time I have.
It's bizarre. And I like it.
Eventually someone will need to come out with true a-la-carte options where the combination of the few I actually WANT won't add up to a current cable bill that includes 8 bazillion channels I never watch.
Until then, OMG look at all this free time I have!
Re:
this is my concern. Nobody seems to care that Salt Marsh has never been located, and none of the court procedures have delved into that fact. Such a shame. I guess we'll never know.
(untitled comment)
What an "ingenious" plan! Wouldn't surprise me if RIAA learns about this and then pays U.S. politicians to try the same thing here.
(untitled comment)
butt-hurt attorneys. Fueling the Streisand effect is really an art form for them.
Re: Re: all sales final
Yeah my concern is if there's a problem, not if I'm not happy with it.
I appreciate the response. And FYI I did buy one of the ZeroLemon solar chargers as a result of checking out the camera :-)
all sales final
Went to buy this because it could be a neat way to keep tabs on my place. The "all sales final" terms of purchase killed that for me.
If a product in 2015 that isn't 2nd hand doesn't come with a proper return policy, I'm out.
I really like the concept of Techdirt deals. Just not where I set myself up to be a sucker.
(untitled comment)
Where do I sign up to be "John Doe 7"? I'd enjoy being referred to as John Doe #7.
Re: Re: Re:
since I work in search marketing, I've had clients hire me to help with their online reputation. I don't always take them on as clients (Streisand effect, etc.)
Once in a while, it's much more complicated. I had one client where a competitor hired an agency to post false content all around the web, mostly on sites that stand behind the "we just host it" claim.
Even though my client won the legal battle, the posters had been "an outside agency", and used false profiles. Just to get the first court process done took two years and $100,000.
To actually get a court to direct those sites to remove that content (since the "anonymous John Does" and their "agency" were unreachable) was expected to take at least another two years. And that much more money.
Seriously. It's a major problem.
Sure, I think forcing search engines to take down links is a mostly horrific path, the system is critically broken as it is, and real human lives, livelihoods and reputations are ruined all the time by malicious troll behavior and actions.
Re:
Actually that's a false flag claim under various circumstances.
One that comes to mind is if information is posted that is flagrantly false, (as has been claimed in such cases all the time), then it has nothing to do with erasing history. It has every thing to do with restoring credibility where it is rightly due.
Only immature people think "if its on the internet, it must be true, and should become part of history".
Re:
I believe the current statutory guidelines call for "hell freezing over".
(untitled comment)
Thank you Senator Wyden for taking the time to so clearly and concisely refute the continued lies, deception and twisting of facts coming from people who, while vital to the interests of our country, are obviously drunk with power, ego and arrogance.
THIS is why I
(untitled comment)
Used to freak out knowing I was approaching a red light camera intersection back when I lived in the SF bay area. Then, this year when I made plans to move to Arizona, started reading old blog posts about Redflex and their scammy ways. Total relief when I learned killing off the Redflex Plague there was already a done deal.
Unfettered capitalism. Greed, control, arrogance. This is why some laws are just necessary in a society, even if we want more freedom than we get most of the time.
Re: Re:
I audit 60 to 80 sites a year. From the smallest mom-pop to enterprise global sites with hundreds of millions of pages.
The vast majority of sites are owned and maintained by small business owners who don't know what they're doing, and barely can afford to implement fundamental necessities, yet they do so nonetheless, and that allows them to participate in the digital community.
As much as I personally would prefer that every site be set up, maintained and upgraded by qualified professionals, it's not realistic in the current environment.
Worse still, I've seen more than several developers screw up some of what I consider the most fundamental technical changes necessary for a site to function.
Re: Re:
From the original post:
Then, in the long term, the vendor might decide to represent non-secure origins in the same way that they represent Bad origins.
Most consumers could well make assumptions (correctly or incorrectly) from how its presented. "WARNING - THIS SITE IS UNSECURE" implies danger.
It wouldn't be unrealistic to assume that many consumers interpret that to be "so dangerous that I should avoid it, without thinking through what this really means in this situation".
As a User Experience professional, I have seen all too often that a majority of end users have a very difficult time applying critical thought to their online decision making process.
So the question here then - does the good outweigh the bad? I say too many site owners who are incapable of adapting will suffer.
(untitled comment)
I hate social engineering. If a site is informational only, there's absolutely no reason to force it into an HTTPS status. To eventually make it APPEAR that an HTTP site is somehow BAD, or DANGEROUS is a horrific notion.
There are so many perfectly legitimate, valid, helpful and worthy sites that won't go to HTTPS for a plethora of reasons this effort will only hurt more than it helps.
Re: Re: Implementation fails
I disagree. If you're not going to allow proper https functionality, the correct best practices functionality should have the https version automatically redirect via 301 server redirect to the non https version.
This ensures that anyone getting to the page will actually get a page.