The Treasury's ID.ME verification is for a part of their web site that lets you get a transcript of previous payments and transactions.
It is not for filing your taxes. You can't file taxes directly with the IRS, only through a tax preparer. If your income is low enough, some of them offer free filing but that is a different story. Still, no ID.ME.
It is also not for checking your refund status. Different part of the web site, much simpler verification using info from your return.
I did the ID.ME verification which was a pain in the rear since most of my IDs including my driver's license have my PO box, not my street address, and my passport picture is so bad I finally had to write on the scan THIS IS AN ACCURATE SCAN, THE PICTURE REALLY IS THAT BAD.
I finally did get an agent on the line who verified that I am me, so it works, for some version of works.
I thought the point of the report was totally clear: for consumers, anything a CBDC can do, a normal bank account can do. Banks will be able to do instant payments with Fednow, and they can provide low-cost easy to use accounts if they can be a little less greedy. On the other hand, in a CBDC account the deposits would all go to the Fed rather than being usable by the bank, which is known as narrow banking, something the Fed has never wanted.
So the message is, hey, banks get your act together and provide fast, cheap, flexible accounts. ''Cuz if you don't, we will, and you wouldn't like that.
The reason their AI tags mass shootings and cockfights as car washes and paintball is that there are a lot more videos of innocuous stuff than dangerous or illegal stuff, and their training algorithms match what they're trained on. It's the same reason that facial recognition s/w doesn't recognize black people, because the training images are mostly white people.
Facial recognition is fixable because training images are easy to collect, mass shootings much less so.
Palo Alto and the Bay Area have about three law firms on every block, but they had to go all the way to L.A. to find a lawyer wiling to sign this complaint. Are they specialists in entertainment law, I.e. fiction?
As anyone familiar with telecom knows, running wires is a natural monopoly, or in this case duopoly since telcos and cablecos run slightly different wires. There are no legal barriers to overbuilding new networks, only economic ones. If you're aware of ways that NY state can change the laws of economics, I know a lot of people who'd like to hear about it.
Actually there is a way, structural separation, but it would have to happen at the Federal level. It works great in Europe where there are zillions of ISPs sharing utility wires.
When you say "copyright isn't about protecting a musician's image," that is true in the U.S. but not in other countries. In 2000 Australia passed a moral rights amendment to their copyright act which includes Right of integrity of authorship:
derogatory treatment, in relation to a literary, dramatic or musical work, means:
(a) the doing, in relation to the work, of anything that results in a material distortion of, the mutilation of, or a material alteration to, the work that is prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation; or
(b) the doing of anything else in relation to the work that is prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation.
Given the facts in this case I'd say her moral rights argument under Australian law would be quite strong. Remedies include injunctions and damages.
Minor error: After Lotus v. Borland was decided by the first circuit, the Supreme Court divided 4-4 so it was upheld by default but didn't set a formal precedent.
I agree that everyone except Larry Ellison believed that the issue was settled decades ago.
The first amendment puts higher or lower bars on various kinds of speech restrictions, but requiring someone to publish something, known as compelled speech, gets as high a bar as anything. Expecting 230 repeal to do that is impressively inane.
I assume their legal advice is coming from the same dream team that's managing the Trump campaign's election challenges.
NDA's only apply if you sign them.
Ms. Trump may well be on the hook for damages. S&S is not.
As to why Robert Trump is the plaintiff, who knows, maybe the book reveals that he's even worse than his brother.
Your phone company knows where your phone is whenever it's turned on -- that's how mobile phones work. Even without GPS they get pretty close by what towers it's contacting.
The problem is that the telcos can and do sell that info rather than limiting it to network operations. If we had an FCC chair who understood the difference between a Verizon lobbyist and a regulator, the path to fixing this problem would not be hard.
I'm surprised they left a giant loophole for us unpatriotic people who live so close to the border that we enter and leave the US in our cars, or occasionally on foot or in a boat (all quite legally.)
I also am trying to imagine how they would do exit scanning of people in cars.
It is definitely not a bug in the GDPR that it makes it difficult or impractical to scrape data off the net and sell it. Everyone affected by GDPR had literally years of warning. If it turned out that the company couldn't afford to maintain their scraped database and comply, that is a failure of their business plan, not of the GDPR.
Surely you can do better than this.