What you think is not technically possible? An app using location services? An app/website requiring users to be logged in?
I don't agree with this BS. I think it puts requirements on people that should not be there. I am not for the morality police.
The argument I have been making is not that it is OK. Just that it is technically possible. And if the companies try to say it is not possible they will be pointed to apps that do determine location. They will point out that Facebook can cut off anonymous access and require users to login.
The big companies can support this nonsense. Might even help them.
What part do I have wrong?
Is it not true that apps can determine location of the device they are running on, regardless of internet connection?
Is it not true that the law applies to companies/websites, not the Internet as a whole?
And TBH I do know a little about how the internet works. I was involved with it when it was still arpanet/nsfnet, before the thing you know as the internet was operating.
But does not stop the people passing laws from trying it. lol I mean they look at all the tech groups gushing about AI. So they can build a system that catches and diagnoses cancer and disease better than doctors. Can solve math problems that have been around for years. But you cannot keep a kid from accessing stuff that will lead to his death. Sure buddy.
That is the mindset. I am one of the nerds. I know some things are just hard. Some impossible. But I don't pass laws and they don't seem to want my opinion.
Those websites certainly do have to worry. The law is about "protecting the children". And some want to protect them from what they are finding at facebook/tiktok/instagram etc. So they have to worry about keeping minors off their sites or curating what they have access to. This is not about porn.
And this has nothing to do with walled gardens. This has to do with an app deciding it should only be accessible to certain people depending on where those people are. Has nothing to do with Apple or Google or IOS or Android. Has to do with the apps/websites.
You are considering the option where you IP address is used to determine location. And you are correct that can be spoofed. But there is a way for an app to determine your location other ways. I don't think the MAP apps used your IP to figure out where they are. They use Location Services (more familiar with apple). The Maps app can see your location even if you are connected to a VPN, because it uses information local to the device to get that. Is the fact that Google Maps gets your location from the phone spyware? Of course not. When installed you are informed it will want location information and you approve it. Meta could do the same thing with the Facebook app. It could ask your location. And then send that location to check some things. If you don't want to give it your location then they might just not work, tell you to use something else. They could also have the website do the same thing. Not check back at the server, but check on the device. If I look through my phone and Location Services, I see a couple browsers that have requested that information. I denied it but they asked. Would be possible for the site to indicate they cannot get location so will not allow me in.
And I do know there are ways to fool the phone into thinking it is somewhere else. But when you do that lots of other things you might want to use break. So only someone hardcore trying to hide their location would probably do that. Not the casual user.
I am just pointing out that technically it is possible to determine your location in an app even if using VPNs. So if it is possible, then Utah will feel they can demand it. No matter how stupid it is.
So to recap, Meta apps can request location information. That information is not affected by VPNs. They can send that location information to the server for further instructions. Websites can do the same thing by using the Location Services on the device regardless of how many hops/relays they are going through.
Utah will go after the companies. You know, Meta, Tiktok, Youtube (Google). Not after the states where they are incorporated. They will just tell Meta you need to do this. We don't care how. But we believe it is possible. And technically it is. I mean, can't the maps apps tell where you are even if you are connected to a VPN?
Don't have to be mandatory. Website just has to indicate that THEY require access to your location. If you don't want to give your location, visit a different site. I mean some websites used to not let you in if you did not have Internet Explorer. lol
I was not presuming anything. Simply stating that is is technically possible to determine where a website visitor is, even if they are using a VPN. As long as it is "possible" then Utah has a leg to stand on when saying you need to do it.
I did state that it would require the user to be using a browser that allowed for querying the location, and the user to have given it that permission.
I don't know about you, but I have run across websites that required certain browsers. I have run across websites that checked for the ability to do certain things and when they could not declined to properly display. Not saying I like it. Not saying it is something they should do. But it is something that happens.
So it is certainly possible that a website could have code/script that checks location in a certain way and if you do not allow it then they refuse to let you on.
There are websites now that if you visit them a dialog comes up stating "your state is requiring age verification" and directing you to how to do it. Not sure how many false positives they get. Doesn't matter if they can show the people in charge the are trying.
Don't agree with it. Think it causes all kinds of problems, many of which have been discussed on this website.
But for people to say it is technically impossible is just plain wrong. They don't have to be perfect, just good enough.
I am not condoning this or saying it is a good idea but a website could have a script/code that used the Location information from the phone/computer to determine location. Much like the maps apps do. Now It would require the user to give the browser permission to get that information. And the browsers would have to indicate they want permission to access location information. So it is technically possible for a website to determine location of users, but not very likely it would be successful.
You say it is a connumdrum. But I don't think it is. Journalism has always supposed to be impartial. Report what happened. Now people are deciding that is not so good an idea. Since the internet has changed things people thing the rules should change to. Yes I understand that in the past, nobody knew what was in a docket, or in a paper in some town 2 states over. And people are constantly trying to figure out how we can use this technology only for good. Try to minimize the bad. But I agree with some of the others. And with what Mike has said many times. The answer to speech you do not like is not censorcism. It is more speech. Makeing sure people can post responses to articles and have that found on the search engine as prominently as the original is the answer.
I have always been impressed with the quality of the reporting and the integrity of Techdirt, but I am disappointed in how this played out. I have been waiting, hoping that Mike would follow up and honor the reputation this site has built up.
If I have missed something in the reporting of this incident, please let me know, but as it stands it seems Mike is going to leave us hanging.
Told us he knows about this serious issue with our courts/government, but one of the actors got to him with a sob story about how sorry he is, so he's not going to tell. I think this is terrible.
Yes, it is his site. He can do what he wants. Just pointing out that in the future I will have to be more skeptical of this site. How will I know if I am getting the full story, or just some spun one because he got a good "explanation" from someone.
It took a lot of work to build the journalistic reputation this site and Mike had. In my opinion, he threw it away.
I believe that even sealed cases are still listed on the court dockets. You can find out the case number and the people involved. Now I understand national security cases seem to get a lot more hidden, but we still seem able to find out the cases exist. Don't they usually just seal the depositions, court filings and the records from the trial?
You were interested in what people thought and it seems clear. While unfortunate for this person, by contacting you they have alerted you to a very serious issue. One that most journalists would feel some duty to report on. An issue that has serious ramifications.
I don't understand how you would report on this without providing the details. Reporters should provide enough facts that readers can do their own fact-checking if they feel it necessary. (This is not a national security case)
I have followed this site for many years. You and your writers do a great job of presenting stories and issues in a way that is understandable and you always provide the information I need to do my own follow-up if I suspect any bias.
You may not call yourself a reporter, but to many you are a Journalist. I empathize with your position. You did not ask to be in it. And It seems from your comments that you are really torn. But in a lot of reporting their are sympathetic actors who get the raw deal. It is not a great situation, but you do understand how serious this is. And I think it is obvious what you should do, even though it may be unpleasant.
I understand that trademark is for the benefit of the consumer. Not being a lawyer though, is it just supposed to protect me from getting a fake product, or also give me some assurance as to the source of the product?
Could I create a snack and call it Pepsi Chips? As long as I don't use their logo?
I can see as to how both these products being beverages someone could be confused as to who the manufacturer is.
Coke and Pepsi may rightly believe that someone could not make a bottled water and call it by their name. Even though they do not sell one with their name on it.
Please explain
What you think is not technically possible? An app using location services? An app/website requiring users to be logged in? I don't agree with this BS. I think it puts requirements on people that should not be there. I am not for the morality police. The argument I have been making is not that it is OK. Just that it is technically possible. And if the companies try to say it is not possible they will be pointed to apps that do determine location. They will point out that Facebook can cut off anonymous access and require users to login. The big companies can support this nonsense. Might even help them.
?
What part do I have wrong? Is it not true that apps can determine location of the device they are running on, regardless of internet connection? Is it not true that the law applies to companies/websites, not the Internet as a whole? And TBH I do know a little about how the internet works. I was involved with it when it was still arpanet/nsfnet, before the thing you know as the internet was operating.
I agree
But does not stop the people passing laws from trying it. lol I mean they look at all the tech groups gushing about AI. So they can build a system that catches and diagnoses cancer and disease better than doctors. Can solve math problems that have been around for years. But you cannot keep a kid from accessing stuff that will lead to his death. Sure buddy. That is the mindset. I am one of the nerds. I know some things are just hard. Some impossible. But I don't pass laws and they don't seem to want my opinion.
I think you may be wrong
Those websites certainly do have to worry. The law is about "protecting the children". And some want to protect them from what they are finding at facebook/tiktok/instagram etc. So they have to worry about keeping minors off their sites or curating what they have access to. This is not about porn. And this has nothing to do with walled gardens. This has to do with an app deciding it should only be accessible to certain people depending on where those people are. Has nothing to do with Apple or Google or IOS or Android. Has to do with the apps/websites.
No spyware.
Just have the app ask for location information and pass it along. Lots of apps do that.
Not sure the confusion.
You are considering the option where you IP address is used to determine location. And you are correct that can be spoofed. But there is a way for an app to determine your location other ways. I don't think the MAP apps used your IP to figure out where they are. They use Location Services (more familiar with apple). The Maps app can see your location even if you are connected to a VPN, because it uses information local to the device to get that. Is the fact that Google Maps gets your location from the phone spyware? Of course not. When installed you are informed it will want location information and you approve it. Meta could do the same thing with the Facebook app. It could ask your location. And then send that location to check some things. If you don't want to give it your location then they might just not work, tell you to use something else. They could also have the website do the same thing. Not check back at the server, but check on the device. If I look through my phone and Location Services, I see a couple browsers that have requested that information. I denied it but they asked. Would be possible for the site to indicate they cannot get location so will not allow me in. And I do know there are ways to fool the phone into thinking it is somewhere else. But when you do that lots of other things you might want to use break. So only someone hardcore trying to hide their location would probably do that. Not the casual user. I am just pointing out that technically it is possible to determine your location in an app even if using VPNs. So if it is possible, then Utah will feel they can demand it. No matter how stupid it is. So to recap, Meta apps can request location information. That information is not affected by VPNs. They can send that location information to the server for further instructions. Websites can do the same thing by using the Location Services on the device regardless of how many hops/relays they are going through.
Other states and countries?
Utah will go after the companies. You know, Meta, Tiktok, Youtube (Google). Not after the states where they are incorporated. They will just tell Meta you need to do this. We don't care how. But we believe it is possible. And technically it is. I mean, can't the maps apps tell where you are even if you are connected to a VPN?
Mandatory?
Don't have to be mandatory. Website just has to indicate that THEY require access to your location. If you don't want to give your location, visit a different site. I mean some websites used to not let you in if you did not have Internet Explorer. lol
I think you read too much into my comment.
I was not presuming anything. Simply stating that is is technically possible to determine where a website visitor is, even if they are using a VPN. As long as it is "possible" then Utah has a leg to stand on when saying you need to do it. I did state that it would require the user to be using a browser that allowed for querying the location, and the user to have given it that permission. I don't know about you, but I have run across websites that required certain browsers. I have run across websites that checked for the ability to do certain things and when they could not declined to properly display. Not saying I like it. Not saying it is something they should do. But it is something that happens. So it is certainly possible that a website could have code/script that checks location in a certain way and if you do not allow it then they refuse to let you on. There are websites now that if you visit them a dialog comes up stating "your state is requiring age verification" and directing you to how to do it. Not sure how many false positives they get. Doesn't matter if they can show the people in charge the are trying. Don't agree with it. Think it causes all kinds of problems, many of which have been discussed on this website. But for people to say it is technically impossible is just plain wrong. They don't have to be perfect, just good enough.
I believe it is possible
I am not condoning this or saying it is a good idea but a website could have a script/code that used the Location information from the phone/computer to determine location. Much like the maps apps do. Now It would require the user to give the browser permission to get that information. And the browsers would have to indicate they want permission to access location information. So it is technically possible for a website to determine location of users, but not very likely it would be successful.
Justifying your earlier decision?
You say it is a connumdrum. But I don't think it is. Journalism has always supposed to be impartial. Report what happened. Now people are deciding that is not so good an idea. Since the internet has changed things people thing the rules should change to. Yes I understand that in the past, nobody knew what was in a docket, or in a paper in some town 2 states over. And people are constantly trying to figure out how we can use this technology only for good. Try to minimize the bad. But I agree with some of the others. And with what Mike has said many times. The answer to speech you do not like is not censorcism. It is more speech. Makeing sure people can post responses to articles and have that found on the search engine as prominently as the original is the answer.
Disappointed in Techdirt
I have always been impressed with the quality of the reporting and the integrity of Techdirt, but I am disappointed in how this played out. I have been waiting, hoping that Mike would follow up and honor the reputation this site has built up.
If I have missed something in the reporting of this incident, please let me know, but as it stands it seems Mike is going to leave us hanging.
Told us he knows about this serious issue with our courts/government, but one of the actors got to him with a sob story about how sorry he is, so he's not going to tell. I think this is terrible.
Yes, it is his site. He can do what he wants. Just pointing out that in the future I will have to be more skeptical of this site. How will I know if I am getting the full story, or just some spun one because he got a good "explanation" from someone.
It took a lot of work to build the journalistic reputation this site and Mike had. In my opinion, he threw it away.
Re: Re: The message from your readers seems clear
I believe that even sealed cases are still listed on the court dockets. You can find out the case number and the people involved. Now I understand national security cases seem to get a lot more hidden, but we still seem able to find out the cases exist. Don't they usually just seal the depositions, court filings and the records from the trial?
Old but relevant
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-2006/disappearing-dockets
has there been more recent rulings on the constitutionality of secret dockets. from this article, the 11th and 2nd circuit ruled against them.
The message from your readers seems clear
You were interested in what people thought and it seems clear. While unfortunate for this person, by contacting you they have alerted you to a very serious issue. One that most journalists would feel some duty to report on. An issue that has serious ramifications.
I don't understand how you would report on this without providing the details. Reporters should provide enough facts that readers can do their own fact-checking if they feel it necessary. (This is not a national security case)
I have followed this site for many years. You and your writers do a great job of presenting stories and issues in a way that is understandable and you always provide the information I need to do my own follow-up if I suspect any bias.
You may not call yourself a reporter, but to many you are a Journalist. I empathize with your position. You did not ask to be in it. And It seems from your comments that you are really torn. But in a lot of reporting their are sympathetic actors who get the raw deal. It is not a great situation, but you do understand how serious this is. And I think it is obvious what you should do, even though it may be unpleasant.
And I believe you know it also.
purpose of trademark
I understand that trademark is for the benefit of the consumer. Not being a lawyer though, is it just supposed to protect me from getting a fake product, or also give me some assurance as to the source of the product?
Could I create a snack and call it Pepsi Chips? As long as I don't use their logo?
I can see as to how both these products being beverages someone could be confused as to who the manufacturer is.
Coke and Pepsi may rightly believe that someone could not make a bottled water and call it by their name. Even though they do not sell one with their name on it.
price vs value
I saw a billboard the other day that summed it up nicely.
Price is what you pay, Value is what you get.