If it didn’t violate any classification restrictions—and that’s a big if; IANAL—I would love to see one of these folks just go full transparency on the executive branch and live blog every communique they receive from and send to the Executive branch. Presumably these are public missives if they can be obtained via a FOIA request. The FTC would just be proactively providing it. Let’s see how well it all goes down in real time with full Brandeis sunlight disinfecting along the way.
So couldn't a school simply have one class with one in-person session as a requirement for all incoming international students? Call it “Essential in-person orientation for all new incoming international students” and each session is simply a 1:1 between the student and a faculty member in their department. Although I prefer “Fuck You, ICE: this is what compliance with your bullshit guidance looks like.”
Look, the system is clearly broken and needs fixing. But if I'm in a band and don't like a particular tweet by the president that uses my song, why wouldn't I use the current system as it currently works to get the—albeit expedient—result I want?
Anyone advocating for less/weak encryption should have it applied to all of their own accounts (email, phone, banking, investments…) for a trial year. It'll be fun to see completely F—ed their lives become and whether or not they thing strong encryption is really a good idea.
They rely others trying to engage in a good faith negotiation (which it turns out isn't possible, because a LIEN's faith is completely self-centered so will never result in a fair compromise). Or barring that giving up and choosing to pay some money up front just to avoid what could end up being a long, stressful, and expensive legal conflict. IP trolls are LIENs. So is Trump.
I hope that the WaPo will be able to counter-sue (SLAPP even?) and recover damages or set some sort of precedent that might deter such frivolous legal action.
Get a RTBF request, generate a new GUID to append to a "new" article that quotes the original article in full, and appends the new information that a previous version of the article was requested to be memory-holed on such and such a date. You can put them up as fast as they are taken down.
For added fun, spawn 2 new copies on each take down. Let's see how fast Goolnik articles can take over the internet.
If I am ever questioned by the FBI, CIA ICE or really any other government enforcement agency, I'm going to livestream it. If they are unwilling to say it on camera, then it was not a legit request to begin with. and if they are, well then it's either legit, or it's fantastic evidence for the subsequent lawsuit.
Of course as I'm reading this, I can already hear the government apologists saying that he should have used "proper channels" to rectify the problem. Of course the obvious problem is that Snowden wasn't even a UK citizen or working for any UK org, so how exactly would that work?
But more to the point, I'd love to see even just one example of "proper channels" actually resulting in such a legal precedent. We have plenty of examples of people trying to use proper channels and getting ignored, shut down, or even undermined.
Once the decision making is out of the hands of the people in the car, then they cannot be held accountable for what the car does. I'm sure there are manual ways to indicate an autonomous vehicle pull over, but of course one cannot presume that the passengers are paying attention.
That does raise the question: how does a self-driving car know that a police car wants it to pull over?
A truly progressive device of this sort would have a duress password that enters into a plausible deniability container with a modicum of completely benign data in it. They can take all the measures they want, and it can simply be met with counter-measures. And if along the way they have to replace some expensive field diagnostic equipment, well just tack that onto the existing security theater budget.
I want to see a phone that when hooked up to an unauthorized snooping device issues a lethal jolt of current that will fry the attached unit, and then goes into full lockdown requiring biometric and passcode to unlock. Anyone know of projects like the being worked on? Heck, I'd settle for just know there is a trojan phone that isn't actually a phone but just a huge battery that can unleash a massive power spike.
(Legal disclaimer: I am just asking for the existence of such devices, not that I would ever condone owning or using them.)
I own a Clips camera, and so far I really like it. Hook it up to a drone with facial targeting and I can get a documentary of important moments in my life. The selfie copter is undoubtedly just a few years away.
But to the point, there is a manual "take photo" button in the Clips app. Of course if the picture is of your with your hands free, that might be a hard sell. But I suppose you could be using your big toe. Or it could be someone else out of frame taking the picture (but then of course they own the copyright).
And if you are going to go that far, why do you even have to admit that it was taken with a Clips camera? Just say it was with a point and shoot on a timer and be done with it.
Why anyone would choose to use an US-based email provider at this point is beyond me I moved over to Proton Mail going on 2 years ago now and I certainly recommend it to everyone I talk to. No matter how the courts are ruling, both the government and US companies have shown again and again and again that they are willing to do anything and everything they can to get to your data if they want it.
Sad that I have to put my trust in an overseas service—and I admit even then there's always a change they could be compromised—but to me it feels like the path of most resistance for any agencies trying to get at my Amazon receipts and family reunion logistics.
Guess those gatekeepers better get busy competing, or get busy dying (to paraphrase a quote from Shawshank Redemption).
Ha ha! who am I kidding?! They will try to buy legislation to impede the competition, which might work in isolated cases in the short term, and there there will be a catastrophic failure of those companies as they scramble to remake themselves into some business—ANY business—that has even a modicum of value.
Any time people say online platforms should do X or be responsible/liable, that same proposal should be applied to other industries to see how reasonable it is. I think real estate, vehicles, and banking are good ones to use.
So should the real estate industry do more background checks on people to whom they sell/rent to ensure they won't be used for nefarious purposes? How about car and truck dealers? Or banks?
Or to put it another way: apply the Alice test. Just because it's "on a computer" or "on the Internet" doesn't mean it should be any different than offline businesses.
More often than not, I think this simple thought experiment will expose just how ludicrous the original proposal is.