What is this innovation that they're supposedly going to be doing if only there was no regulation? What are they talking about?
The old telephone network hardware is going away, whether it's POTS or DSL, and being replaced with off the shelf hardware made by someone else. The entire system is moving to one where the telcos buy networking hardware from someone else and install it. They're not designing new hardware. Not at anything resembling scale, at least.
For example, networking cards and switches frequently have pluggable optical transmitters/receivers. For 10Gbit/sec networking they use "SFP+" transceivers. Anyone, literally anyone, can go online and buy the hardware and fiber optic cable for transmitting between two computers that are 10km apart. At that speed the transceivers cost about $30 each at ordinary retail prices -- I just checked! This availability is common and has been for a long, long time with prices always dropping. The latest hardware can do 1600Gbit/sec at a higher cost, of course, but that cost will come down.
At most the telcos are buying hardware built to specs they created since set-top boxes may need, for example, a chip specific to DOCSIS, but that's the cable company turned telcos in that case. Is AT&T going to ignite a revolution in upgrades to the boxes on the sides of homes? Not likely.
So, where are they supposed to be innovating? New business models? No evidence of that. New... something else? Like what? And, no, returning to the abusive practices un-outlawed by the magical deregulation fairy dust doesn't count as "innovation".
When they talk about unleashing innovation, what on Earth are they talking about?
The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast TV both because of the finite nature of spectrum and the fact that, at the time, TV was pretty much universal.
This doctrine never applied to newspapers or magazines, and if it was still around would not apply to web sites without causing some serious first amendment issues.
Because if KOSA becomes law, and KOSA incorporates the DSM, then wouldn't that mean the copyright on the DSM would be eliminated?
No one can own the law, and knowing what the DSM says would be required to know the law, so wouldn't that imply the DSM becomes public domain?
Has anyone told the organization that maintains the DSM about this?
I'm not sure about the argument about how the entire database holds water.
Consider this hypothetical: A search with this SQL would be unconstitutional SELECT * FROM allusvoters.db WHERE zip = "10000" && party == "R"; because the entire database would have to be searched. However, if the zip or party fields had indexes then only a subset of the database would need to be searched and the index for the field would specify the subset. Since it wouldn't be the entire database it would be constitutional, no?
If Google's database has an index for the timestamps then the entire database would not need to be searched. So hanging the analysis on the constitutionality of how much of the database needs to be searched seems weak.
So US government tried to solve a "problem" by created a new, larger one, and then they used the new problem as a justification for an even more sweeping law? And this whole time they aren't actually fixing any problems along the way? Say it ain't so!
What's next? Creating vast databases of American IDs ripe for abuse in order to "solve" the problem of age verification?
Done correctly, tokens have expirations built in to them that cannot be changed except by making a new token. An expired token cannot be used.
Also, tokens can be tied to specific services or, minimally, certain IP addresses. Assuming that Eightball wasn't running on random people's computers/phones, the IP block used by Eightball should have been blockable when used with tokens that weren't allowed to use Eightball. Heck, even without tokens those IP addresses should be blockable if a blanket ban was wanted!
Tokens can be extended such that new tokens have restrictions that old tokens don't have. With expirations built into tokens the old tokens without the restrictions over time become a non-issue.
This whole affair sounds like an example of punishing people when they should instead be fixing their broken system or switching to one that isn't broken.
Bricking a car with a hostile OTA update is pretty harmless. More worrying would be a hostile power sending an OTA update that caused the car to crash and kill however many people. Science fiction has a number of examples of people who died in perfectly timed car crashes.
It's like the world is viewing dystopian sci-fi and thinking it's a good idea.
But, yeah, claiming that we need more security through obscurity is a dumb argument and is a sign that the article was written -- at best -- by a person who is ignorant of how security involving computers actually works.
If ISP comply as hard as they can it will create a huge economic disaster in Italy. This, in turn, will either result in Italy becoming irrelevant or Italians seeing the mess and forcing the blocking requirement to be removed.
Are we going to start seeing this in TV dramas? "Hurry! This man is dying! Get him a lolipop - stat!"
Or imagine a TV show with soldiers going into battle: "Let's see, guns, bullets, lolipops... Let's roll."
North Carolina native here. Yes, NC has solid forfeiture laws... currently. But NC was ruled by a Democratic legislature for 100 years. That ended after the economy blew up in 2008. Then the Republicans took over the legislature.
The NC Republican-controlled legislature has been pushing hard to arrange to keep control forever. They've been steadily stripping the governor (who tends to be a Democrat) of power. They also have been pushing hard to change county elections boards to have an even number of R and D on them which is bound to result in deadlocks after elections with the legislature then deciding who gets NC's Electoral College votes. We'll see how the court challenge to the latest attack on our elections turns out. The law in question is 2023-SB749.
They've been very busy for the past ten years.
It won't be long before they change NC's forfeiture laws to allow forfeiture without involving the federal government. If the federal law is changed so they don't have that loophole around NC law then you can bet NC law will be changed for the worse. Count on it.
Seriously, is copyright on dance moves going to result in more dancing or more dance moves being created?
Is copyright on choreography going to advance either science or the useful arts? Seems to me it's going to make choreography a legal minefield and result in less of it. How many choreographers are going to hire lawyers to review their work before putting on a show?
Can someone point me at the statute or other source of law that gives the federal government the right to even attempt to force these sorts of terms onto a company that has not lost a lawsuit justifying them?
I can't figure out if TikTok has bad lawyers or if they're just overly used to operating the Chinese way.
It's true. "Military-grade encryption" is code for "something isn't right here". The military uses the same encryption as everyone else because they want to maximize the number of researchers looking for vulnerabilities. A vendor claiming "military-grade encryption" is like claiming that a brand of water is better because it's "military-grade water".
Do the police know that the owner of the car is Hertz? If dispatch knows, do they relay that to the patrol cars? If not, this creates an obvious difficulty in the patrol officers ignoring Hertz reports.
Google "irreparably injured the RNC’s relationship with its community."
Really? "I'm never going to vote Republican again! I never got an email asking for money!" -- said nobody ever.
If the UK law is already working to make children in the United States safe then why do we need this California bill to become law? There are huge downsides to this bill, and we need to suffer those huge downsides because of something existing UK law is already addressing because.... why exactly?
And I noticed that you didn't address any of the downsides to the bill. Instead you just restated why you think the bill is needed. That's hardly convincing.
His new nickname is.....
Neville Schumerlain.
What innovation? How?
What is this innovation that they're supposedly going to be doing if only there was no regulation? What are they talking about? The old telephone network hardware is going away, whether it's POTS or DSL, and being replaced with off the shelf hardware made by someone else. The entire system is moving to one where the telcos buy networking hardware from someone else and install it. They're not designing new hardware. Not at anything resembling scale, at least. For example, networking cards and switches frequently have pluggable optical transmitters/receivers. For 10Gbit/sec networking they use "SFP+" transceivers. Anyone, literally anyone, can go online and buy the hardware and fiber optic cable for transmitting between two computers that are 10km apart. At that speed the transceivers cost about $30 each at ordinary retail prices -- I just checked! This availability is common and has been for a long, long time with prices always dropping. The latest hardware can do 1600Gbit/sec at a higher cost, of course, but that cost will come down. At most the telcos are buying hardware built to specs they created since set-top boxes may need, for example, a chip specific to DOCSIS, but that's the cable company turned telcos in that case. Is AT&T going to ignite a revolution in upgrades to the boxes on the sides of homes? Not likely. So, where are they supposed to be innovating? New business models? No evidence of that. New... something else? Like what? And, no, returning to the abusive practices un-outlawed by the magical deregulation fairy dust doesn't count as "innovation". When they talk about unleashing innovation, what on Earth are they talking about?
The Fairness Doctrine....
The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast TV both because of the finite nature of spectrum and the fact that, at the time, TV was pretty much universal. This doctrine never applied to newspapers or magazines, and if it was still around would not apply to web sites without causing some serious first amendment issues.
Wait, so does this mean KOSA "incorporates" the DSM V?
Because if KOSA becomes law, and KOSA incorporates the DSM, then wouldn't that mean the copyright on the DSM would be eliminated? No one can own the law, and knowing what the DSM says would be required to know the law, so wouldn't that imply the DSM becomes public domain? Has anyone told the organization that maintains the DSM about this?
Searching the entire database?
I'm not sure about the argument about how the entire database holds water. Consider this hypothetical: A search with this SQL would be unconstitutional
SELECT * FROM allusvoters.db WHERE zip = "10000" && party == "R";because the entire database would have to be searched. However, if theziporpartyfields had indexes then only a subset of the database would need to be searched and the index for the field would specify the subset. Since it wouldn't be the entire database it would be constitutional, no? If Google's database has an index for the timestamps then the entire database would not need to be searched. So hanging the analysis on the constitutionality of how much of the database needs to be searched seems weak.Which means.....
Not wearing a seatbelt? Sounds like you wanted to die.
Wait...
So US government tried to solve a "problem" by created a new, larger one, and then they used the new problem as a justification for an even more sweeping law? And this whole time they aren't actually fixing any problems along the way? Say it ain't so! What's next? Creating vast databases of American IDs ripe for abuse in order to "solve" the problem of age verification?
They're doing tokens wrong.
Done correctly, tokens have expirations built in to them that cannot be changed except by making a new token. An expired token cannot be used. Also, tokens can be tied to specific services or, minimally, certain IP addresses. Assuming that Eightball wasn't running on random people's computers/phones, the IP block used by Eightball should have been blockable when used with tokens that weren't allowed to use Eightball. Heck, even without tokens those IP addresses should be blockable if a blanket ban was wanted! Tokens can be extended such that new tokens have restrictions that old tokens don't have. With expirations built into tokens the old tokens without the restrictions over time become a non-issue. This whole affair sounds like an example of punishing people when they should instead be fixing their broken system or switching to one that isn't broken.
Building a sci-fi dystopia piece by piece
Bricking a car with a hostile OTA update is pretty harmless. More worrying would be a hostile power sending an OTA update that caused the car to crash and kill however many people. Science fiction has a number of examples of people who died in perfectly timed car crashes. It's like the world is viewing dystopian sci-fi and thinking it's a good idea. But, yeah, claiming that we need more security through obscurity is a dumb argument and is a sign that the article was written -- at best -- by a person who is ignorant of how security involving computers actually works.
No, ISPs need to comply as hard as they can....
If ISP comply as hard as they can it will create a huge economic disaster in Italy. This, in turn, will either result in Italy becoming irrelevant or Italians seeing the mess and forcing the blocking requirement to be removed.
I can see it on TV....
Are we going to start seeing this in TV dramas? "Hurry! This man is dying! Get him a lolipop - stat!" Or imagine a TV show with soldiers going into battle: "Let's see, guns, bullets, lolipops... Let's roll."
About the Surgeon General...
"Just as the surgeon general did with tobacco and guns," ... but didn't do with social media. Clue!
plagiarizing every word...
Did you add "(I stole the idea from Jonathan Lethem)" because you didn't want to be accused of plagiarism?
Solid forfeiture laws... for now.
North Carolina native here. Yes, NC has solid forfeiture laws... currently. But NC was ruled by a Democratic legislature for 100 years. That ended after the economy blew up in 2008. Then the Republicans took over the legislature. The NC Republican-controlled legislature has been pushing hard to arrange to keep control forever. They've been steadily stripping the governor (who tends to be a Democrat) of power. They also have been pushing hard to change county elections boards to have an even number of R and D on them which is bound to result in deadlocks after elections with the legislature then deciding who gets NC's Electoral College votes. We'll see how the court challenge to the latest attack on our elections turns out. The law in question is 2023-SB749. They've been very busy for the past ten years. It won't be long before they change NC's forfeiture laws to allow forfeiture without involving the federal government. If the federal law is changed so they don't have that loophole around NC law then you can bet NC law will be changed for the worse. Count on it.
Is copyright on dance moves even needed?
Seriously, is copyright on dance moves going to result in more dancing or more dance moves being created? Is copyright on choreography going to advance either science or the useful arts? Seems to me it's going to make choreography a legal minefield and result in less of it. How many choreographers are going to hire lawyers to review their work before putting on a show?
Where's the law when you need it?
Can someone point me at the statute or other source of law that gives the federal government the right to even attempt to force these sorts of terms onto a company that has not lost a lawsuit justifying them? I can't figure out if TikTok has bad lawyers or if they're just overly used to operating the Chinese way.
It's true. "Military-grade encryption" is code for "something isn't right here". The military uses the same encryption as everyone else because they want to maximize the number of researchers looking for vulnerabilities. A vendor claiming "military-grade encryption" is like claiming that a brand of water is better because it's "military-grade water".
Do the police know that the owner of the car is Hertz? If dispatch knows, do they relay that to the patrol cars? If not, this creates an obvious difficulty in the patrol officers ignoring Hertz reports.
Irreparable harm?
Google "irreparably injured the RNC’s relationship with its community." Really? "I'm never going to vote Republican again! I never got an email asking for money!" -- said nobody ever.
If the UK law is already working...
If the UK law is already working to make children in the United States safe then why do we need this California bill to become law? There are huge downsides to this bill, and we need to suffer those huge downsides because of something existing UK law is already addressing because.... why exactly? And I noticed that you didn't address any of the downsides to the bill. Instead you just restated why you think the bill is needed. That's hardly convincing.