PrometheeFeu's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
This week’s favorites of the week post comes from PrometheeFeu
We all live in anticipation for The Call when Mike Masnick sends you an email that asks you to write Techdirt Favorite Posts of the Week and changes your life forever. We all wonder what we will be doing when it comes and how we will react. I was cleaning up cat vomit and coughing my lungs out when I answered: “Sure, I would love to!” In the spirit of making myself and all of you feel better, I decided to try to tease out some of the good news in this week’s posts. We all love righteous indignation (and so I kept some) but sometimes things are improving.
The week kicked off pretty well with the interesting news of Medvedev (our favorite Putin stand-in) wanting to include a CC-like option in Russian law. In practice, it is probably irrelevant, but it may be a sign that the maximalists are starting to lose the battle for hearts and minds. However, my country of birth’s broadcast regulator ruined Monday with a “Won’t somebody think of MySpace” plea banning news organizations from the admittedly annoying: “You can follow us on Twitter @TheNewsYouJustSaw”. It would be opening “Pandora’s Box” they said. Pandora you say? Seems the regulators are not above advertising music services.
It seems somebody is always getting in the way. Whether it be the recording industry artificially limiting the ways we can use the cloud for music, the FDA not really knowing how to deal with medical devices or Apple imposing restrictive conditions on its apps, there is always someone who jumps in the middle usually demanding money. What the barriers-to-trade supporters — whether they be copyright maximalists, FDA apologists or Apple lawyer groupies — forget is that those barriers don’t just ensure safety or make money change hands. They also preclude certain forms of innovation to the detriment of consumers. But there is a silver lining, whether it be newspapers switching to HTML5 to get out of the App Store (Sorry Apple Store), Amazon and Google just going through with their service without label authorization or Tricorder builders selling outside of the USA, capitalism always finds a way to provide more and more valuable goods and services to consumers.
For the most part, Wednesday was a good day for civil rights. First, Senator
Ron Wyden and Rep. Jason Chaffetz announced plans to introduce a bill to prohibit GPS
tracking without consent. This is either spelling the end of the rule of law, or
asking the police to respect your basic rights, I forget which. Then, New
Zealand suddenly realized that the three strikes
law would violate their citizen’s rights. Of course, that might land
them on Santa’s the recording industry’s the USTR’s
Special 301 report listing those countries that placed their citizen’s rights
above being a good little recording industry toady. But the crown jewel of that
day was
Samsung showing Sony how to do business: When somebody is doing work to
improve your product, help them, don’t sue them. Of course, things are never
perfect, especially in New Jersey where apparently, real
journalists don’t use message boards. Also settled in that case: real
programmers don’t use emacs.
Thursday’s opening just about knocked the breath out of me. The World Intellectual Property Rights Organization (WIPO for friends) commissioned a meta-study to see if intellectual monopolies harm innovation. (Spoiler: It does). The legal landscape nevertheless remains dangerous if you want to blow whistles under the Presidency of Mr. “sunshine is the best disinfectant.” (Not Medical Advice. Also, a lie.) Thankfully, the successes are mixed with Wikileaks “associates” (as in they might get Facebook to recommend they friend Assange’s third cousin thrice removed) potentially being criminalized for not testifying, and the prosecution against Thomas Drake falling apart because the evidence against him is so sensitive you can’t even show flowcharts about it in court. Hopefully, more whistle-blowing lawsuits will fail (or result in favorable settlements) due to the Fed’s paranoid obsession with secrecy. The irony is just too good.
Unfortunately, it appears that despite all the progress of this week, some people are still pushing absurd laws. Lip-synching videos on YouTube could earn you a jail term if public performances are criminalized. But you probably shouldn’t, worry. It’s highly unlikely you’ll get caught unless you annoy a government official. Rule of law? What rule of law?
But let us end the week on a positive note. Officials tend to jump at every opportunity to terrify their constituents into the most absurd actions. (Anyone remember the automatic letter openers to protect us from anthrax?) Well, every once in a while, when the media tells us to be afraid, somebody steps up and says: “Calm down. Things are not that bad.”
Final Disclaimer: I work at one of the above-mentioned companies as a software engineer so feel free to consider that I am subject to some related biases. However, I am not authorized to speak for my employer or anyone but myself and my cat. The opinions expressed above are solely my opinion and should be attributed to no one else on pain of looking foolish.
Re: Disagree
The question isn't really whether or not they deserve to be vilified. The question is whether or not you should trust the certs they issue. Making it hard for people to revoke the certs means people will be hesitant to revoke bad certs. That means their certs should not be trusted.
Re: Re:
Not really. The french use civil law while the US uses common law.
Re:
I don't think anyone said Tim is one such person. What we said is that he said something that some of us find offensive. We're not saying he should be fired, hung, thrown in jail, marooned, the subject of widespread opprobrium. Just that he said something offensive. What's wrong with saying "Oops, this was meant as a joke and I didn't mean to offend you guys. I'll try to watch out in the future."
Re: Re: Attention easily offended people
Context for the first sentence is provided in the last sentence. Being offended isn't a rational objective analysis. So I got offended before I got to the end of the article. That's how human brains work. DH could have simply said: "I understand some of you were offended by the joke in the first sentence. As you can see at the end, this was meant as a sarcastic comment. Sorry if that wasn't clear." Done. No need to get defensive.
Re: Attention easily offended people
I'm not easily offended and I do know it was a quote. (Forgot it was the Simpsons, thought it was South Park) The way you wrote it is indeed also making fun of Americans, but it is nevertheless still offensive. It's not like we're accusing you of being a horrible bigot. The phrase was offensive to some of us and we're just letting you know. A little criticism isn't going to kill you. I for one would have been perfectly happy if you had applied the phrase to the government and the supporters of this law, but it's really unpleasant to be lumped in with these protectionist idiots.
You could have made the exact same point without the "surrender monkeys" joke. It's pointlessly offensive.
Re:
You're right. Americans are so irrational. And don't get me started on Americans' opposition to socialized food and socialized clothing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're quite right. Sometimes when corporations run things, you don't actually have other options and you are stuck with something crappy for a while. When the government runs things, you are always stuck with whatever they give to you. Sometimes, you get to opt out. (though you of course still have to pay for the crappy service you're not using.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Four-Step Healthcare Solution
Of course I can. I would not do it personally obviously. I would look up the doctor's credentials, reviews, certifications by third-party organizations, etc... In other words, I would outsource it to competent third parties.
WRT the food-supplement industry, I don't see your point. Are you claiming that consumers in that industry are dropping like flies? As far as I can tell, people who consume food-supplements are quite happy with what they buy. I for one participate in that industry only in a limited manner because I want a high degree of certitude WRT the effects of the products I purchase. So I do more research. But others are quite happy with the placebo effect or with taking a higher risk and so do less research. I get what I want, they get what they want, everyone is happy. What's the problem?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We seem that way to folks like you who are under the mistaken impression that all such things can only be provided by the government and that they can be efficiently provided by the government. (by which I mean neither over-provided nor under-provided)
Who in their right mind would buy unsafe water? What makes you think people would not try to save money by having energy-efficient homes? Why would telecommunication companies not build and launch the satellites they use to make lots of money? (hint: they do)
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Four-Step Healthcare Solution
You're right. I have a better idea. Let's prohibit anybody who is not in the top 10% of doctors to practice medicine. I mean, we don't want anyone getting shoddy quality. Nobody but the richest will be able to afford doctors, but hey, fuck the rest of us right? Quality is important, and if that means people die or can't afford surgery at that quality level, who cares?
Re: Re: A Four-Step Healthcare Solution
You mean to say that if there was no government-licensing, you would just go hire the cheapest doctor without any regard to their competency? That sounds suspiciously like you getting what you deserve.
Re: Re: Re:
If it is run by the government and it works poorly, as a citizen of a republic, I'm screwed, because I have zero power to change things unless I'm an influential lobbyist, in which case I'm (practically by definition) wealthy enough to afford health care that actually works well. (When was the last time you cast the deciding vote in an election?)
If it is run by corporations and it works poorly, I can go look for a different corporation to provide me with healthcare or found a corporation to provide it better making millions of dollars in the process.
When you look at it that way, it's pretty simple.
Re:
There are plenty of reasons why people oppose the PPACA (That's "Obamacare") ranging from the highly intelligent to the stupid. (Similar to the reasons why people support the PPACA) I can give you my reasons which are obviously on the highly intelligent side of this.
I oppose it because it forces you to pay for more healthcare than you need and it forces you to pay for healthcare through insurance even when not sensible. This ends up raising the cost of healthcare.
Here is an example: birth control mechanisms. (Let's set aside their therapeutic use for a moment which is a completely different issue) Your consumption of birth control isn't linked to a "risk". It's a regular expected expense. In fact, the birth control pill is something you have to take every single day. You can't get further away from "risk" than that. And yet, the Obama healthcare plan mandates that your health insurance (which you are required to carry) must cover birth control. If it does not, you will have to pay a penalty. (or tax if John Roberts happens to be reading)
Now, you might say, who cares? Women having birth control is good. Sure it is. But you have to wonder about the incentives. Having birth control covered by health insurance means you don't pay full price at the point of purchase. All other things equal, that pushes you towards the higher priced version whether it is worth the higher price or not. That means birth control is more expensive than it otherwise would have been. And of course, you do pay full price because that means premiums and/or taxes go up to compensate. That's just one of many such products which are not risk-related but which the Obama healthcare plan forces you to purchase bundled with your insurance.
Now, before I'm accused of being some retrograde opposed to women being able to chose when they have kids, I am not. I think it's a jolly-good thing that women have access to birth control pills. But I would rather the price of birth control not be artificially inflated just so the Democrats can score cheap political points with women voters.
Then you have the more general issue of younger folks. People in their 20s. People in their 20s often do not buy any health insurance, or they buy a catastrophic care plan. (in case they get hit by a bus or something similar happens) That makes a lot of sense. People in that age group are highly unlikely to need the full array of medical services that somebody older might need. Also, those people don't have that much money to spend on health insurance. (When we were in our early 20s, my wife and I purchased a bare-bones $~100/month plan for instance) Such plans are not allowed under the PPACA. (Well, you can have them if you are willing to pay the penalty on top of that.) In fact, the current average healthcare expenditure of somebody in their 20s is significantly lower than the new required plans will cost. Let me be clear on that one: Under the PPACA, people in their 20s must spend more on insurance plans than they currently spend on healthcare.
Now, somebody is bound to jump in and point out that this is all BS because the PPACA also provides subsidies. So even if the true cost of healthcare for a 20-year old will go up, if the 20-year old is poor, they will get subsidized and so they won't pay as much and too bad for the richer 20-year olds, they can afford it. (Too bad also for everyone when the total price of healthcare goes up.) But that's an inconsequential argument. The subsidies are completely separate from the individual mandate and community rating. The PPACA could have simply said: we know it's hard for poor people to afford healthcare. Here is a voucher. Go buy the health insurance you need. Or expanded medicaid. Or any number of schemes to allow people who need insurance to get it without creating all of those perverse effects in the healthcare market. But instead, they went with a plan that had some good parts, but whose central provision is a terrible idea. That's why I oppose the PPACA. (There is more, but I have to do some work.)
The law that is allegedly violated is not that auto-complete is being racist. It is that auto-complete is creating a database that contains ethnicity. Of course, given that the presence of the word "jew" in auto-complete does not actually indicate that the person actually is jewish, the lawsuit is bogus. But bogus in a different way.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, so your assessment that significant extra protection was provided is based on what exactly? I'm not saying it's a bad assumption, but the article supports only the fact that Bush's daughters were in Buenos Aires and that they may have put themselves in a dangerous spot. Nothing in there suggests there were significant security arrangements made. So when abc gum asks: "How many were assigned to the Bush twins on their excursions, like to Buenos Aires for example." my answer is that I don't know, but that the article in question suggests few, not many.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are serial killers who rape and murder dozens of people. Does that mean we should stop handing out parking tickets?
So yes, the wars that Bush (as well as Clinton, Obama, Bush Sr) are orders of magnitudes worst than what we are talking about here. But that is not an excuse.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither does the President of the United States. There are plenty of fetters. If he started abusing his power wantonly to comply with demands by kidnappers, the cabinet would most likely declare him incompetent and the VP would take over. Now of course, Cheney in charge isn't exactly what I would call peachy, but it's nowhere near as bad as you think.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good for you. It's very generous of you to chose to give the guy a hand so his daughter can go visit Mexico. Oh wait, you had no choice in the matter. He just reached in our pockets and took what he wanted. Well... You are still a generous soul for wanting to give.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know. But on the page you linked to, it said: "No Secret Service agents were anywhere to be seen in the lobby, according to ABC News? Joe Goldman." My point was not that Obama's daughter shouldn't have gone to Mexico. My point was that it was irresponsible of her father to spend extra tax-payer dollars for it. So sending his kid with insufficient security is one way to do this. Of course, the Bush twins were adults and so if their father said: "I can't send enough Secret Service to protect you effectively", they could answer "OK, we'll risk it." Given how young Obama's daughter is, I simply assumed that the "go to Mexico with insufficient security" option was off the table.