FTA:
" It includes the following rather fanciful description of how this 3D-spying capability might be used. It's rather over the top, but it gives an idea of what's theoretically possible"
A scare piece, nothing more.
I guess I was unclear, though you have good points. Ever see "wag the Dog"? We're fed this, which really had no reasonable chance of passing, to distract from something else, and there's ALWAYS something else.
The big question is WHAT?
So. 8 million managed a few mouse clicks, tapped a few keys, and the problem goes away? Sorry, this is another one of those nasty situations where I spend more time looking to see just what we're supposed to be distracted away from.
This was too easy, they've done this to us before.
No, I'm not paranoid, this just seems stupidly simple. No cloak and dagger, most everything about SOPA & PIPA, as evil as I believe they could be, is readily available? Really?
Sorry folks, what's REALLY the deal here?
Is copyright infringement what stopped us from using the mere name of Heimlich? This situation needs to be fixed by the courts, where the phrase "for the greater good" needs to be exercised more.
'Pre-disposed', the same argument used when 'potential' child molesters/sexual predators are rounded up in stings that result in life sentences for a crime never committed against a minor who never existed.
This current mindset in the courts, whether it's terrorism or predation, ought to scare the hell out of everyone.
I am curious, having seen no mention of it yet- Does the U.S. Marshal's office monitor this site as a potentially subversive comment site, or was it turned over to them by a dutiful DHS agent, or a Techdirt 'community member'(not being paranoid here, just realistic)?
Certainly! Even here in Texas, flipping off a LEO has been found(in court) to be an expression of free speech, not the 'disorderly conduct' charge the person was charged with. Bear in mind, you can test this if you have LOTS of time on your hands to spend on the side of the road/back seat of the patrol car, and you will likely leave with a ticket- just not for flipping 'em off.
The agency has ZERO responsibility to furnish cell service extension. Zero. What is done as a courtesy service for paying customers of the transit service can be ceased to protect the integrity of the service. BART's under no legal obligation to provide this service, there is NO First Amendment protection. It's not cell service, it's nothing more than a booster.
But I'd be curious to see a survey from paying patrons of BART, just to see what their take on this is. I doubt this is the big deal that it's tried to become, despite the unemotional actualities of law and reason.
That's something that many people seem to misunderstand- BART furnishes- to their customers- the extender service so their customers' phones will work in the subway, where otherwise they would not normally work. To me, the right to refuse service to anyone threatening to disrupt service to paying customers, while not a popular view, is likely to be found correct.
If BART can show just cause that their intent was the protection of the many while turning off a service that they LEGALLY control, this should go away.
Cell service-or more precisely, a private cell service EXTENSION- is not a First Amendment right.
Oh, let's just tell the rest of the story:
This is for AT&T's LANDLINE customers. Just like Time Warner, making analog cable service unattractively expensive because digital is easier/cheaper to manage, AT&T would LOVE to kill off analog communications(landlines) to manage VOIP easier/cheaper.
Not a surprise, but the seniors who CAN'T make the switch are the one's who'll pay for this, and their kids/grandkids should've bought them prepaid cells from WalMart to help cut the phone wire.
Genuine question:
Anybody care to enlighten me on how this was a possible violation of free speech and/or the Wireless Communications Act, but being required to turn off your cell in a court of law is not?
While 'ancestors' vs. 'descendents' was certainly an error(re-worded but not re-read) it doesn't make your post less stupid.
While I don't 'make light' of your ancestors' slaughter, I sure as hell don't act like mine were the only ones, like, well, a certain group of people seem want to do.
I will make errors, but at least I will admit them.
And, apparently unlike you, I will move on.
Aw, you had me up until you misspelled 'buffoons'!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine
Meanwhile, more of my descendants(Native Americans) were slaughtered at the hands of the U.S. government than Jews by Hitler. Millions more.
Move the hell on.
FTA: "They [the activists] made us choose between people's ability to use their mobile phones (and) their constitutional right to get from point A to point B."
I think it's interesting how the transit official just knows it's OK to terminate cell service, but riding the train is now a constitutional right.
You see what you want to see, I guess.
And that other part- alleging shortening the yellow light- is illegal. Report it to the state, although in reality it is rare that it's actually been done- classic urban legend.
"The yellow light timing length is shortened to insure that you will be in the intersection when the light turns red."
Um, no. As far as I have seen, this is a direct violation of state law in most, if not all, states. If you suspect this has happened, call your state transportation department(most have toll free numbers) and report it.
Cities have been fined for this very thing, and they have to follow the rules just like we do.
Not quite true. They're civil cases, in which case the burden of proof is on the citizen, not the city. Place blame where it properly belongs: it's your town council or city government, YOU can get this recalled with a simple petition and a vote.
Re: Re: Re: More replies than here, and actual discussion too.
No, she says he's 'special', not cool, and she would be correct.
Re:
FTA:
" It includes the following rather fanciful description of how this 3D-spying capability might be used. It's rather over the top, but it gives an idea of what's theoretically possible"
A scare piece, nothing more.
Re: What's REALLY the deal here?
I guess I was unclear, though you have good points. Ever see "wag the Dog"? We're fed this, which really had no reasonable chance of passing, to distract from something else, and there's ALWAYS something else.
The big question is WHAT?
So. 8 million managed a few mouse clicks, tapped a few keys, and the problem goes away? Sorry, this is another one of those nasty situations where I spend more time looking to see just what we're supposed to be distracted away from.
This was too easy, they've done this to us before.
No, I'm not paranoid, this just seems stupidly simple. No cloak and dagger, most everything about SOPA & PIPA, as evil as I believe they could be, is readily available? Really?
Sorry folks, what's REALLY the deal here?
Is copyright infringement what stopped us from using the mere name of Heimlich? This situation needs to be fixed by the courts, where the phrase "for the greater good" needs to be exercised more.
'Pre-disposed', the same argument used when 'potential' child molesters/sexual predators are rounded up in stings that result in life sentences for a crime never committed against a minor who never existed.
This current mindset in the courts, whether it's terrorism or predation, ought to scare the hell out of everyone.
Seen it other places over the years, mostly on Fark. Good luck with this, it's destined to end badly.
Re:
Long known about the BBB and AARP- they're most accurately referred to as 'marketing companies'.
I am curious, having seen no mention of it yet- Does the U.S. Marshal's office monitor this site as a potentially subversive comment site, or was it turned over to them by a dutiful DHS agent, or a Techdirt 'community member'(not being paranoid here, just realistic)?
Re: What about the jerks .....
Certainly! Even here in Texas, flipping off a LEO has been found(in court) to be an expression of free speech, not the 'disorderly conduct' charge the person was charged with. Bear in mind, you can test this if you have LOTS of time on your hands to spend on the side of the road/back seat of the patrol car, and you will likely leave with a ticket- just not for flipping 'em off.
Re: Re: Re: Weird...
The agency has ZERO responsibility to furnish cell service extension. Zero. What is done as a courtesy service for paying customers of the transit service can be ceased to protect the integrity of the service. BART's under no legal obligation to provide this service, there is NO First Amendment protection. It's not cell service, it's nothing more than a booster.
But I'd be curious to see a survey from paying patrons of BART, just to see what their take on this is. I doubt this is the big deal that it's tried to become, despite the unemotional actualities of law and reason.
Re: Weird...
That's something that many people seem to misunderstand- BART furnishes- to their customers- the extender service so their customers' phones will work in the subway, where otherwise they would not normally work. To me, the right to refuse service to anyone threatening to disrupt service to paying customers, while not a popular view, is likely to be found correct.
If BART can show just cause that their intent was the protection of the many while turning off a service that they LEGALLY control, this should go away.
Cell service-or more precisely, a private cell service EXTENSION- is not a First Amendment right.
Oh, let's just tell the rest of the story:
This is for AT&T's LANDLINE customers. Just like Time Warner, making analog cable service unattractively expensive because digital is easier/cheaper to manage, AT&T would LOVE to kill off analog communications(landlines) to manage VOIP easier/cheaper.
Not a surprise, but the seniors who CAN'T make the switch are the one's who'll pay for this, and their kids/grandkids should've bought them prepaid cells from WalMart to help cut the phone wire.
Genuine question:
Anybody care to enlighten me on how this was a possible violation of free speech and/or the Wireless Communications Act, but being required to turn off your cell in a court of law is not?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While 'ancestors' vs. 'descendents' was certainly an error(re-worded but not re-read) it doesn't make your post less stupid.
While I don't 'make light' of your ancestors' slaughter, I sure as hell don't act like mine were the only ones, like, well, a certain group of people seem want to do.
I will make errors, but at least I will admit them.
And, apparently unlike you, I will move on.
Re: Re:
Aw, you had me up until you misspelled 'buffoons'!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine
Meanwhile, more of my descendants(Native Americans) were slaughtered at the hands of the U.S. government than Jews by Hitler. Millions more.
Move the hell on.
Re:
FTA: "They [the activists] made us choose between people's ability to use their mobile phones (and) their constitutional right to get from point A to point B."
I think it's interesting how the transit official just knows it's OK to terminate cell service, but riding the train is now a constitutional right.
You see what you want to see, I guess.
Re:
And that other part- alleging shortening the yellow light- is illegal. Report it to the state, although in reality it is rare that it's actually been done- classic urban legend.
Re: Re: Still in favor
"The yellow light timing length is shortened to insure that you will be in the intersection when the light turns red."
Um, no. As far as I have seen, this is a direct violation of state law in most, if not all, states. If you suspect this has happened, call your state transportation department(most have toll free numbers) and report it.
Cities have been fined for this very thing, and they have to follow the rules just like we do.
Re:
Not quite true. They're civil cases, in which case the burden of proof is on the citizen, not the city. Place blame where it properly belongs: it's your town council or city government, YOU can get this recalled with a simple petition and a vote.