It is anybody's right to record police activity in public, just as any news organization, by right, gathers information about gvt. activity. No difference. Anybody can, by right, report the police activity he records, to the public, just as any news organization, by right, reports the information they gather about gvt. activity, to the public. No difference. First Amendment.
Please excuse whatever gross ignorance I exhibit by my question. Does the bandwidth hog myth, data caps, bandwidth throttling, etc. have something to do with something called internet neutrality? (I don't even know what a "cookie" is. Do some have peanut butter in them?)
Mike Kevitt, here, comment 56, above, just before your #57, Anonymous Jerk. So I'm a giant pussy. But, of course, a man SHOULD live by the advice I supposed Mr.Baugher would give to a son. What do you think I meant? Any woman should also live by the same advice. Are women too weak to do that? Do women always need parental or authoritarian protection from things coming from others which they, themselves, like others, have a right to do? I don't think so. If that makes me a giant pussy, ok. Tell the whole world, Mr. Jerk.
An Internet provider has property rights, just like anybody else, such as newspapers, or you. So, he can allow anonymity if he wishes. That, as a supplement to the 1st. Amendment, confers the right of anonymity. If the provider doesn't allow it, too bad for Mr. Anonymous, who must find a provider who will allow it, or publish his speech by his own resources, directly. If he can do that on the Internet, fine. If not, he might have to settle for shouting it from a street corner. The 1st. Amendment gives you the right, ON YOUR OWN RESOURCES. Others aren't obliged to provide you with their property, their Internet access, megaphone or their vocal chords. Mr. Baugher has no rights to stop Mr. Anonymous from having his comments posted, not if Mr. Anonymous used his own resources or got permission from someone else to use theirs. Mr. Baugher can try boycotting. Admittedly, it's hard to criticize back when the criticizer is anonymous, but, too bad. It's my bet that, all things equal, if it was Mr.Bauer's son instead of daughter, he'd say, "Son, get used to criticism, even when they challenge your basic manhood some way. Absorb it; reduce it to nothing in your mind; don't worry what people think. Just show'em your a man. You know how." Maybe a daughter can't live up to such an upbringing and advice.(?)
The press & media blasting gov't. classified data to the public isn't mere whistleblowing. It's CRIME, fully on a par with phone hacking, with probable consequences worse than even those in the hacking case at hand. Concerning classified data, the press & media are on a par with Assange & PFC Manning: criminals. Without clearance & need to know, no one has any business knowing classified data. You may, by right, object to U.S. foreign policy & to the criteria & amount of classification. But, the 1st. Amendment doesn't confer the right to free-wheeling with classified data, to access, use & blast it to the public. That's a CRIME, period, & a criminal way to object to what you don't like.
RE back to Derek Kerton: It appears the only solution to the things you cite is to tear down the Internet and roll back all the hi-tech., and go back to the old technology and stay there. It's my bet you don't think that, and that the appearance I cite is wrong. How 'bout this? Computers, hardware and software are one thing, and the Internet is something else. Can't the cops gather data from the Internet and store their db. offline, analyse it offline, get more data online, analyse it offline and maybe even delete useless data from its offline db.? Can anybody hack into offline data? Maybe I'm showing an immense technological ignorance with that question, but I'll chance that. If that can be done, it's better than going back to old tech. As for the government knowing everything about everybody, in an actually free country, if that really did happen, so what?, as long as any person or entity doesn't initiate physical force anywhere against any other person or entity. In such a country, despite whatever it knows about whom, the government can go after only initiators of force, that is, it can go after only criminals. The subject of just what a "free" country is, is a big subject. Here, I'll just say it's where the government does but one thing: Take effective responsive physical force against initiatory physical force, that is, against crime.
Free speech means you can intellectually express your ideas without being thrown in jail for it. That doesn't mean you can leak, or publish leaked classified data, or cause physical disruption in order to express your ideas, like hippies always did during the '60's.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by whatisdisplayname.
recording police activity
It is anybody's right to record police activity in public, just as any news organization, by right, gathers information about gvt. activity. No difference. Anybody can, by right, report the police activity he records, to the public, just as any news organization, by right, reports the information they gather about gvt. activity, to the public. No difference. First Amendment.
Bandwidth Hog Myth
Please excuse whatever gross ignorance I exhibit by my question. Does the bandwidth hog myth, data caps, bandwidth throttling, etc. have something to do with something called internet neutrality? (I don't even know what a "cookie" is. Do some have peanut butter in them?)
Re: Anonymous comments
Mike Kevitt, here, comment 56, above, just before your #57, Anonymous Jerk. So I'm a giant pussy. But, of course, a man SHOULD live by the advice I supposed Mr.Baugher would give to a son. What do you think I meant? Any woman should also live by the same advice. Are women too weak to do that? Do women always need parental or authoritarian protection from things coming from others which they, themselves, like others, have a right to do? I don't think so. If that makes me a giant pussy, ok. Tell the whole world, Mr. Jerk.
Anonymous comments
An Internet provider has property rights, just like anybody else, such as newspapers, or you. So, he can allow anonymity if he wishes. That, as a supplement to the 1st. Amendment, confers the right of anonymity. If the provider doesn't allow it, too bad for Mr. Anonymous, who must find a provider who will allow it, or publish his speech by his own resources, directly. If he can do that on the Internet, fine. If not, he might have to settle for shouting it from a street corner. The 1st. Amendment gives you the right, ON YOUR OWN RESOURCES. Others aren't obliged to provide you with their property, their Internet access, megaphone or their vocal chords. Mr. Baugher has no rights to stop Mr. Anonymous from having his comments posted, not if Mr. Anonymous used his own resources or got permission from someone else to use theirs. Mr. Baugher can try boycotting. Admittedly, it's hard to criticize back when the criticizer is anonymous, but, too bad. It's my bet that, all things equal, if it was Mr.Bauer's son instead of daughter, he'd say, "Son, get used to criticism, even when they challenge your basic manhood some way. Absorb it; reduce it to nothing in your mind; don't worry what people think. Just show'em your a man. You know how." Maybe a daughter can't live up to such an upbringing and advice.(?)
phone hacking and "whistleblowing"
The press & media blasting gov't. classified data to the public isn't mere whistleblowing. It's CRIME, fully on a par with phone hacking, with probable consequences worse than even those in the hacking case at hand. Concerning classified data, the press & media are on a par with Assange & PFC Manning: criminals. Without clearance & need to know, no one has any business knowing classified data. You may, by right, object to U.S. foreign policy & to the criteria & amount of classification. But, the 1st. Amendment doesn't confer the right to free-wheeling with classified data, to access, use & blast it to the public. That's a CRIME, period, & a criminal way to object to what you don't like.
Re: Re: GPS tracking by the authorities
RE back to Derek Kerton: It appears the only solution to the things you cite is to tear down the Internet and roll back all the hi-tech., and go back to the old technology and stay there. It's my bet you don't think that, and that the appearance I cite is wrong. How 'bout this? Computers, hardware and software are one thing, and the Internet is something else. Can't the cops gather data from the Internet and store their db. offline, analyse it offline, get more data online, analyse it offline and maybe even delete useless data from its offline db.? Can anybody hack into offline data? Maybe I'm showing an immense technological ignorance with that question, but I'll chance that. If that can be done, it's better than going back to old tech. As for the government knowing everything about everybody, in an actually free country, if that really did happen, so what?, as long as any person or entity doesn't initiate physical force anywhere against any other person or entity. In such a country, despite whatever it knows about whom, the government can go after only initiators of force, that is, it can go after only criminals. The subject of just what a "free" country is, is a big subject. Here, I'll just say it's where the government does but one thing: Take effective responsive physical force against initiatory physical force, that is, against crime.
free speech, concerning New Zealand
Free speech means you can intellectually express your ideas without being thrown in jail for it. That doesn't mean you can leak, or publish leaked classified data, or cause physical disruption in order to express your ideas, like hippies always did during the '60's.