Leigh made a point in a comment c212 that is worth re-emphasizing. If you release your work into a public space, it is ludicrous to expect that you can control how others choose to use that space. If he wanted to control the space, he should have rented or bought the location where the artwork was placed.
As it is, the public would be well within its rights to move the statue to another, different public space—say, the bottom of the Hudson River.
But you know what would be even better? Removing every part of the statue, but leave the asshole. I think that would be appropriate given the actions of the creator.
Maybe VPN isn't a full solution to the problem, but it certainly is better than doing nothing. I mean, obviously switch to one of the ISPs on this list if you can. But barring that, yes a VPN is going to help you out. And yes it's an extra expense, but again, what's the alternative? Do nothing and let the ISPs have their way with your privacy.
Regarding ease of use, I see it as a market opportunity. If VPN services are willing to take out full page ads, they could also spend money on creating and supporting a dedicated VPN router for their customers.
Now I get it, not everyone has access to the better ISPs out there—like the ones that signed that EFF letter. But for those that do, what a great marketing opportunity. We won't collect and sell your data. If I weren't already using Sonic.net, I would absolutely switch.
The other people who could benefit are the VPN providers. If I were stuck with Comcast, AT&T or one of the other most-hated companies, I'd sign up for a solid VPN service and invest in a router that supports VPN. Again, I get it. Not everyone is tech savvy enough to pull this off. But if a VPN provider would ship out and support a router that was configured to always use their VPN, well that would be the kind of service that certain folks would pay for.
I just signed up for WebPass in San Francisco, which is now owned by Google Fiber, as per their logo. They do wireless for the last mile. It required mounting an antenna on the roof. (Actually we piggybacked on another tenent in the building who paid for the antenna installation.) Looks like they are in 7 metro areas now. Admittedly I haven't followed the story closely, but this looks like a pretty big part of a pivot to wireless.
The hypocrisy here is so obvious as to be laughable. According to Trump, we need more laws to further constrain and punish the citizens, but corporate regulations must be reduced, as per his "2 for 1" order.
"McConnell has a well-earned reputation as one of the savviest political operators of the post-war era, so it’s hard to imagine he didn’t know how his move would play."
I agree with this. But then again he is human, maybe he whiffed on this one completely. But seriously, now Warren is being compared with every single civil rights heroine out there. If he has some ulterior plan, it is certainly very subtle.
I'll state up front that this isn't possible in many areas of the country. However here in the SF Bay Area we thankfully have several ISP options that don't engage in what John Oliver called "ISP fuckery". I personally use Sonic, but MonkeyBrains and WebPass are also worthy options.
I know you are a news site and not necessarily an advocacy platform, but you did do advocacy for SOPA. Maybe this is another issue worthy of giving your readers a call to action.
I know from one perspective this looks like a complete disaster. But from another, isn't it a good thing that we have someone testing the bounds of what is allowable and what isn't? And if things were done a certain way simply by convention rather than the rule of law, this is a perfect time for Congress to start passing some laws that codify these practices.
The shock here shouldn't be that Trump is doing things a different way for his own selfish advantage. The shock is that we don't have a system in place to prevent it from happening. Our job now is to fix that.
It would probably be career suicide, but if I were going to be retiring soon anyway, I'd take advantage of the "5 nines" approval record and see exactly how far one could go before the court turned a request down. Maybe if it actually targeted the members, family and friends of the FISA court judges themselves? But of course don't start there. Or couch it in a way that "leaks of information from within our agencies is a huge threat to national security and our children etc. This request is for all communications relevant to determine who is leaking this information." Dress it up in a way to make it sound less like "we are going to spy on our own" and see what happens.
One point that I wish the media would make regarding this story: even if the source of the hack was Russian, that does not imply the Russian government was behind it, and it's misleading to imply the link when it hasn't been proven.
"Americans responsible for act terrorism against their own countrymen" accurately yet misleadingly describes what Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols did.
As much as I don't like Trump and think he's unqualified for the job, I think he is doing a great service to our political system. He's essentially "fuzz testing" the government. And if Congress embraced this way of thinking and acted on the information they are being given, they would get off their partisan asses and start passing some legislation that formally codifies the valuable customs into law.
Ad hominem! Come on, people. (and yes, I'm including you in that group, Mike). Every time someone in the media talks about Snowden's personality or education or background or any other irrelevant attribute, the only appropriate response is AD HOMINEM.
It doesn't matter who he was, what his background was, or any of that. He could have killed everyone in his building as he was absconding with the information. And yes that would have been awful. But all of that is ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM THE FACTS OF THE SECRET PROGRAMS THAT HE GAVE TO JOURNALISTS WHO THEN CHOSE WHAT TO REVEAL. It doesn't matter who Snowden was. It matters what the government was doing. And to continue writing articles that accept this premise only serves to reinforce their distraction tactics.
I’m no fan of Donald "truthiness instead of facts" Trump, but on this one I am with him. If China doesn't want POTUS talking to the President of Taiwan, then maybe China shouldn't allow there to be a President of Taiwan. I mean do they govern Taiwan or not? To allow a position to exist within their government whose title conveys a certain level of power, but then to throw a tantrum when someone talks to the person in that position is pretty immature. China should be decisive, either eliminating that position, or recognizing it as a powerless figurehead and knowing that any conversations they have are ultimately meaningless.