Hiring models for a party is pretty stupid. But at least it's a step up for booth babes? I guess? Maybe a half step up? Ok, yeah, it's just dumb.
As for the techbros, versus the rest of the tech world - some of the most truly evil things in history were done out of a genuine desire to make the world a better place. By people trying to make their mark. I'm not convinced that their actions stand up to scrutiny any more than the partiers.
That's not why he said that some accounts should be locked.
The reason he said that is because some accounts, due to their importance or the controversy associated with them, are going to be more likely to be messed with than others.
It's not because Trump is more deserving of protection. It's because those accounts are more susceptible to employee abuse... the thing the story is about.
I think the question of whether an employee can send tweets under someone else's Twitter account is pretty fascinating, though. Undoubtedly this is possible for at least some of the staff at Twitter...
If only someone had warned us about the security problems with the IOT.
They're trying to rid the site of the unbearable amount of trolling and comments that go way beyond just posting a dissenting opinion so that the comments actually generate discussion instead of just heaps of abuse and flame wars.
There are tons of sites that are grappling with this issue, of how to get rid of all the sociopaths and psychopaths (and death threats and other crap) but still preserve the more thoughtful discussions.
I've never been a fan of heavy moderation, but I don't like using the upvote system either (slashdot is one of the worst, also doesn't anyone watch Black Mirror?). So it will be interesting to see what sort of culling system that various sites end up settling on to deal with this.
Comey has controlled the media conversation on this very closely, it's sort of fascinating. What a calculating man he must be! I would love to have him coaching me when I have political battles at work.
He's been having hints leaked to the press that he might have tapes of his own, of some conversations. If that turns out to be the case... whoa.
I'm curious how accurate this particular implementation of the technology is...
Seems like it would be just a matter of time until the incorrect person is identified, runs because they're scared and gets killed.
This story has developed a lot over the past few days.
If what the sources quoted in the media are saying is true, Comey refused to "pledge loyalty" to Trump when they met, but pledged to always be honest with him.
For such a highly political post, and considering how much I disagree with many things the FBI does, I do respect what it must take to be asked that sort of a question by the POTUS, in person, and in that moment to be able to tell him no.
Imagine how different our press briefings would be if the other people Trump surrounds himself with had done the same thing.
The word "wary" suggests thought and consideration. Trump has neither of these. He plots, he schemes, he feeds his ego... but he really doesn't do a lot of thinking, and neither do the people he surrounds himself with.
Undoubtedly, whoever Trump taps for the job, he will require that they agree ahead of time to not continue investigating the Russia connection.
As far as the devil we know - it's not as if any other director is going to be better for privacy. It's the nature of that job and the type of people in that field. Not to mention Trump's outlook on criminal justice.
The main positive outcome of all of this is that Trump has put another nail in his coffin.
Well, their RESPONSE to the problems could be called corruption but the actual implementation itself is more likely due to project management mishaps, vendor culpability, business process issues and lack of testing.
Whoever was responsible for the interface between Odyssey and that CRIMS (I think it was called that, the system the public defender uses) system obviously borked it up. I'm guessing that was written by the vendor.
But, from reading the motion that the public defenders filed in court, apparently entering data into the new system is complex and time consuming. That problem was probably detected in early testing - unless there was no early testing.
I would love to know a bit more about the technical details that have caused these issues. I wonder if, when the new software was adopted, a full conversion of the old data was done. It's hard to imagine what kind of an error would cause someone to be mistakenly identified as a sex offender, unless there is actually incorrect data being captured/input somewhere.
Without knowing more information it's hard to know whether the software vendor or gov't agency is at fault (or both). But, you have to wonder if there isn't a lawsuit against Tyler Technologies that's in the works...
That seems not unlike saying that if a drunk girl gets raped, the root cause of her rape is her decision to drink. Hopefully we're a little more enlightened than to make engage in that sort of victim blaming.
If a bad and unjust thing happens to you while you aren't in a sober state of mind, the thing is still bad and unjust and the people who did it should not be given these lame ass excuses for what they did.
I don't really see how the Axon system affects transparency or accountability in any way but positive ones. Losing access to the recordings by not paying subscription fees also means their entire video recording system would stop working. And Axon would probably will provide them with a backup copy of all of their media, presumably, since the police department owns it.
Recordings that aren't associated with a specific case will just get deleted anyway after a period of time (anything else is unsustainable). Recordings that ARE associated with a case are evidence, and tampering with evidence is pretty serious. Obviously it's done sometimes but it's not something they can just do without anyone noticing, and there would be extensive legal consequences.
The fact that it's with a third party makes getting rid of it more difficult, in my opinion.
They simply have system logs that show which users have accessed it, when, etc. They are much more reliable and harder to fabricate/tamper with than the physical check in/check out logs police would have had to use back in... well, back in the pre-computer era.
I think this is a smart move by Axon, but it's not as predatory as you're making it sound here. Changing video storage systems will still be a lot less trouble than changing case management systems, and departments do that all the time.
As for transferring the videos, PD's would undoubtedly keep their Axon contract until the new provider is found so there wouldn't be an awkward intermediary period, just the issue of transferring the videos from one provider to another while keeping chain of custody intact.
Axon has structured their business very cleverly, though - as you point out, most police departments just aren't going to bother switching to another provider once they get established with Axon.
There's no reasonable reason to believe that video games cause violence, but it remains entrenched in the psychology community to think so.
Also, having seen firsthand the positive effects of video games on my son I think we should take a look at how they can affect learning and imagination.
I think what's most important about kids playing games is to help them process what they're seeing. The various situations that come up in game narratives (drug use, for instance, which is pretty pervasive) have led to me having lots of great discussions with my son (how is drug use different from the way they're portraying it? Why is it bad to use drugs to escape from reality? etc.).
So basically, what I'm saying is that everyone should play more videos games.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by kristimetz.