Again, even if pages are encrypted, whoever is buying the data will see the URLs you visited. Say, on the pages on a medical site dealing with specific and embarrassing medical conditions, teen pregnancy, etc.
This is not accurate. Barring a TLS MitM attack, HTTPS URLs are encrypted and not available to your ISP. They will certainly have access to the IP address of the server you're connecting to, and unless you are using encrypted DNS they'll have access to the domain, but not the full URL. So, for example, my ISP can tell I'm reading techdirt, but not which article I'm looking at.
It's feasible to determine the length of a URL from the encrypted data. I'm not sure how problematic that is, but I recall discussions about adding random padding to prevent such things to the TLS spec. Dunno if anything ever came of it.
I won't go so far as to say expect, I'm not that naive, but I certainly demand politicians who don't accidentally stumble into a correct stance merely because something became personal for them. It galls me to no end when politicians are imperiously ignorant to the consequences of their actions, so long as those consequences don't touch them personally. It clearly shows that they don't see themselves as the servant of their constituents, but as the rightful occupant of a seat of power. This isn't about fucking bias. Whether "12333 needs oversight" is a correct position is completely fucking irrelevant. That he came to that position not through the wishes of his constituents, but because his personal power was challenged should fucking alarm and infuriate you. That's how a ruling class behaves, something we should not, and must not tolerate.
Look, if you want to argue that those being deported for illegal immigration should have to forfeit any assets they have, that's one thing. There's plenty of arguments against that, which I'm not going to get into here, but it's at least a logically defensible position. That's not what we're talking about when we discuss "asset forfeiture", though. Law enforcement officials have no need to prove that someone is in the country illegally, or have committed any sort of crime, in order to seize their assets. It's horribly open to abuse, as has been shown time and time again.
Even if someone does eventually manage to navigate the byzantine appeals process and reclaim their assets, so much time has passed by then (months, if not years), that real losses have been sustained. It's not like they get back their assets with interest.
Arguing that the assets of people convicted of a crime are subject to seizure is one thing. Arguing that LEOs can seize whatever they want, on whatever grounds they feel like, from people who are not only not convicted of a crime, but in many cases are not even charged with one, is insane.
Seriously. Even if you start with the a priori assumption that illegal immigration is an existential problem, how the frak do you think building a wall is going to help anything? Do you how know how the bigger smugglers/coyotes cross the southern border? Tunnels. Giant, miles-long tunnels that go right past the border. And the solution to stop this is... build a wall? My brain hurts.
So, let me get this straight. American workers aren't able to compete with foreign workers. They demand that the government step in to regulate the private sector, forcing companies to hire American workers, regardless of the costs involved. In order to effect those demands, these people vote for the party which espouses laissez faire capitalism, and to which the very idea of regulations is anathema.
Look, I get the US first mindset. I do. There are plenty of real problems here at home, and it can be frustrating to see so much time, effort, and money spent towards problems that don't even affect us. The US should not be acting as world police (and, indeed, doing so for the most part just pisses other nations off).
With that said, it's doubly important to think about chained effects. Shit like this is dangerously short-sighted. Like it or not, we live in a global community. When we do shit like this, it sends a message that it's "us against the world", and that's a very dangerous message to send. Look at what Obama did after the Snowden leaks, he pulled back on intrusive surveillance of allied nations. Was this because he cares one whit about privacy? Obviously not, given what he sanctioned within our own nation. No, he curtailed some of the more egregious programs because our allies were pissed off about it, and he wisely avoided a major diplomatic incident. This is something Trump desperately needs to learn. Shit like this tends to escalate. It won't be long before our allies, let alone the rest of the world, takes this a step further in response.
Fuck, say what you will about Hillary, (she would have been fairly terrible on domestic issues, in my opinion), but at least she understands international politics.
Not sure what you're talking about. Which corporation won anything? The law firm? 'cause Paramount/CBS are only losing free revenue, marketing, and good will, thanks to this "settlement". This is a classic example of a company shooting themselves in the foot due to copyright tunnel vision.
I know you're being facetious, but, no, I'm not surprised. Trump only cares about Trump. He's all for redefining libel when it enables him to sue news outlets, but he once he realized that he can be sued for some of his behavior under the new libel definition, he put the brakes on immediately.
Much of the piracy that game publishers want to prevent is during the initial release. Piracy is less of a concern during the long tail. As such, publishers are starting to make initial releases with restrictive DRM to maximize on the initial burst of interest, then remove the DRM after the buzz has died down. That lets them generate more interest for being consumer friendly, reduces support costs, and additionally opens up new markets. They're getting the benefits of DRM while sidestepping the costs.
Techdirt doesn't hold comments for moderation based on content, and doesn't try to silence people. The site does, however, try to promote honest discourse, and one of the things it tries to prevent is sock-puppet posting. Making multiple posts in the same thread with different email addresses will usually trigger manual review, which can take some time. Using proxies to attempt to get around that certainly wouldn't help. Just be patient, and eventually someone will get around to reviewing the posts, and in most cases they'll be approved.
Note, though, that the techdirt community has an unfortunate tendency to abuse the report comment feature to hide comments they disagree with. That's unrelated to the site staff, though, and is entirely done by the users.
People 35+ don't really need ID to buy alcohol/tobacco, not a whole lot of people actually own guns, there are plenty of people without bank accounts, you don't need an ID to file taxes, and school-age individuals can't vote...
Several people behind some of the state voter ID laws have themselves admitted that the reason they were pursuing those laws was to suppress likely Democratic voters. If you really think these politicians care one whit for "protecting society", I've got a bridge to sell you.
Those behind the various pushes for voter ID laws are not racist. (Well, probably. At least, there's no correlation there.) They are, however, purposefully attempting to make it harder for minorities to vote. This has been well documented. Now, they're not doing so because they hate said minorities and want to silence them, they're doing so because those groups tend to vote Democrat. This is politics, pure and simple.
It really is. What he reads into other people says more about how he views the world than anything else. "Your leadership", "you followers"... Particular amusing given that I'm an independent that dislikes the very idea of political parties.