I can actually understand such a worry, especially in the modern climate of "always believe the victim." I once dated a crazy girl. And not in the sense of "wow, my ex is sooooo crazy," but actual literally "conveniently neglected to mention the schizophrenia before we started dating" crazy. Full-on hearing voices, bizarre government mind-control conspiracies, the works. Stuff I used to think was only how it's portrayed in movies before I interacted with her. More than once she hallucinated up really awful things that I had supposedly done to her and berated me over them, even years after we broke up and I moved to another state. (Not to get away from her per se; I had found a new job. But it was definitely a factor!) Stuff that if she accused me of it in public would likely end with me getting lynched. So yeah, when someone talks about being worried about systems that allow people to broadcast accusations under circumstances where they're likely to be believed uncritically... I totally get that. There are good reasons why that's a bad thing!
It is the risk of GDPR (general data protection regulation), and with filtering as suggested now. The size of a company is always a way to assess whether there is a problem, and I think we should do the same with these regulations so that there could be a progressive liability depending on how big the company is or there could be some kind of mechanism that would help small or medium size companies to deal with these requirements.
Well said! The biggest part of the General Data Protection Regulation is that it's general and indiscriminate. I've always been a fan of the principle that "with great power comes great responsibility," and that means that as your power increases, the degree of responsibility you have to bear also increases. Far too often in today's world, it's the other way around: power brings freedom from responsibility and accountability, or the money to buy said freedom.
We also know examples of Russians having flagged Ukrainian websites and then they were taken down. And if that happens to a political candidate in the last 24 hours before an election it could be decisive, even if the companies say they'll restore it within 24 hours.
Here I'm a bit more skeptical. Just nitpicking--I'm the last one to stand up for extrajudicial takedowns!--but the example being used here is kind of silly. Are we really supposed to believe that the number of people who don't already have their minds made up 24 hours before an election is significant enough to sway that election?
Also, if you look at Facebook, almost everybody is on Facebook now. For somebody else to start from scratch and reach everybody is very difficult.
I'm reminded of the line from Jurassic Park about scientists being so busy thinking about if they can do something that they never stop to consider whether or not they should. Nobody seems to be asking the question of whether or not having a social network that "reach[es] everybody" is even a good thing in the first place. Given how many of the problems with Facebook are a direct result of its massive, unwieldy size... maybe we should be?
So what exactly went wrong here? Everybody directly involved in this incident behaved appropriately.
These two guys were driving in a car that had indeed been stolen. The ALPR system did not have a false positive, (which is when it misidentifies something, such as reading a B as an 8 or a 1 as an I,) but found a car that had actually been stolen. The deputies responded completely right for a stolen car, treating it as a scenario in which they might have to face hostile resistance, and approached with guns drawn.
The people inside said it wasn't stolen, but the officers can be forgiven for not accepting that at face value, as it's exactly what a thief would say. Instead, they took time to verify that there was nothing dangerous or illegal going on--rightfully the first priority--then verified whether or not the rental was legitimate. Meanwhile, the people inside the car didn't do anything stupid to escalate the situation. In the end, it was determined to be a valid rental and the guys in the car were free to go, without anyone getting shot, arrested, or otherwise screwed up.
This is the very picture of "the system working correctly." The only thing that went wrong had happened a month before when, after the stolen car was recovered, some person (presumably) unrelated to this sequence of events neglected to take this car out of the stolen car database.
That person, whoever they are, is the only person in this entire scenario who did anything wrong. (Aside from the car thief, of course.) If anyone is getting sued over this, it should be that person! But instead Mr. Hofer chooses to pursue a "Steve Dallas lawsuit" against the sheriff's department. That's kind of despicable.
Three, that reducing the number of major wireless competitors from four to three will somehow create more competition
I can actually see where this one is coming from. There's competition, and then there's competition, and there's a perception out there that Sprint and T-Mobile are "second-tier" wireless companies, not quite in the same league as AT&T or Verizon. But a hypothetical "Sprint-Mobile" would be big enough to play in the same league as the other two.
Not sure if that's actually true, but it intuitively makes sense on some level.
He had to declare it at the beginning of a 3 day weekend so less people would pay attentionYou know, people always say that when things like this happen, and it's possible that that actually is the reason why some of these things are happening, but considering the way this was all over the news right away, I'm starting to wonder how valid the tactic is anymore.
Waaah! My team scored more total runs in the World Series than your team. They're the true winners; the system that says the team winning best 4 games out of 7 is an antiquated relic and needs to be changed!
Other countries have no equivalent to 230 and with the "right to be forgotten," even accurate content can now be taken down.You say that as if it helps your case somehow...
What are you talking about? Look up at the top of my comment. See the icon next to my name? See where it says "Insider" on the icon? That means I fund him. As does everyone else on here with an "Insider" icon. There it is, right out in the open for anyone to see.
Try reading the linked article.
in two decades of making music, selling 4.6 million albums, he's "never made a dime" from album sales, but has instead used those record sales to make money on tourIn other words, the record companies steal all of the artists' profits on their music sales--literally so in some cases, such as Lyle Lovett's--and it only serves as advertising to induce people to come to concerts, which is where he makes his money. This makes their sanctimonious talk about piracy harming creators particularly galling. Piracy can't harm the artists, because even successful artists like Lyle Lovett are getting nothing, which means there's no pool of "money they're receiving" to diminish the size of!
Digital platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Google have had a consistent message for European lawmakers: Regulation will stifle innovation.
It's important to realize that this is not always a bad thing.
Mixed in with all of the amazing societal gains we've gotten over the last 25 years or so, we've also ended up with sleazy companies like Facebook, Palantir and Cambridge Analytica coming up with all sorts of new and innovative ways to spy on people. Stifle that, please!
We've seen Uber develop innovative new methods of price-gouging and evading the law and those who enforce it. Stifle that, please!
All sorts of hardware manufacturers from Apple to John Deere have developed innovative new ways to lock down computers and steal our property rights. Stifle that, please!
Not all innovation is good. Some of it deserves to be "stifled," if not outright "smothered in the cradle." The trick is figuring out policies that are selective enough to not also stifle the good, beneficial stuff.
The claim that immigrants blow off hearings is completely false. The DOJ's own data shows that 60-75% of non-detained immigrants show up for court appearances.
Huh?
This means that 25-40% of a group that numbers in the millions--and that's a lot of people by any measure!--do in fact blow off hearings. That hardly counts as "completely false!"
Or the version commonly attributed to Josef Stalin: "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes."
I have nothing more to say to youAnd yet you immediately follow this up with a reply to the person who replied to you. As I told the stalker-ish ex-gf who kept loudly proclaiming, over and over and over again for months and month, that she was going to break up with me and NEVER TALK TO ME AGAIN!!! (long after I had broken up with her,) "I'll believe it when I don't see it."
As Kipling put it,
once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane
is it's possible in the EU to be charged criminally for violating the GDPR and this new law, and US law won't protect against thatAre you sure? According to Wikipedia,
Double criminality is a requirement in extradition procedures from the United States, as extradition is allowed only for offenses that are alleged as crimes in both jurisdictions.
Now there's an obscure reference! I wonder how many people here have read that?
Perhaps. Just as possible would be pro-gun nuts, as a false-flag operation. Or any number of other interests.
from the why-oh-why-do-we-still-not-have-an-edit-option dept.
Argh. The biggest part of the problem with the General Data Protection Regulation is that it's general and indiscriminate.